Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 8.

Return Ordered,
of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 8, showing the date of

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before House or Committee when moved.
Whether in House or Committee.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.


and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Return Ordered,
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, and Bills for confirming Schemes under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1933–34:
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisonal Orders which in Session 1933–34 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:

such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Sessions 1931–32–1933–34."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).

Return Ordered,
respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1933–34, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1933–34, have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member was summoned and on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, and Bills for confirming Schemes under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee"—[The Deputy-Chairman,]

PUBLIC BILLS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1933–34; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and dis-
tinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1933–34, with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SELECT COMMITTEES.

Return ordered,
of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1933–34 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY.

(1) Return ordered,
of the days on which the House sat in Session 1933–34, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after 11 p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

STANDING COMMITTEES.

Return ordered,
for Session 1933–34 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in
the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WORKING HOURS.

Mr. LYONS: 1
asked the Minister of Labour (1) what are the proposals of His Majesty's Government with reference to work-sharing for the distribution of employment and the consequential decrease of continuous unemployment;
(2) whether he can now make any statement upon the practicability of the introduction of a seven-hour day or a five-day week in industry?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As I informed the House yesterday, I have arranged for immediate consultation with representative organisations of employers and workpeople regarding the general question of hours of work, and in this connection the particular points to which my hon. Friend refers will undoubtedly be brought under review.

Mr. LYONS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, may I ask him whether he will consider giving the benefit of the advice of his Department to any firm which desires at once to put into operation any scheme for the shortening of the working week?

Mr. STANLEY: Yes, I shall be only too glad to do so.

Mr. PALING: Am I to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are definitely going to recommend to the employers the adoption of the seven-hour day and the five-day week?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir. The hon. Member must not understand something that I never said. I said that I was going to discuss, I hoped, with industries individually the possibility of the absorption of more workers by means of the shortening of hours.

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement last night that the question of discussion would be overtime? Is he going to bring up these other matters in addition? Is he going to recommend to the employers that they should adopt these other things in addition to leaving off overtime?

Mr. STANLEY: It is not only a question of overtime, but the hours of work generally.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman himself in favour of recommending these things?

Mr. LYONS: Is it a fact that those firms which have already experimented with the 5-day week have in each case

Unemployed persons, resident in the Borough of West Ham, on the registers of Employment Exchanges.


Date.
Men aged 18 and over.
Women aged 18 and over.
Juveniles aged 14 to 17.
Total.


20th March, 1933
…
…
16,349
2,119
957
19,425


19th March, 1934
…
…
13,408
1,699
563
15,670


22nd October, 1934
…
…
13,001
1,350
437
14,788

LANCASHIRE.

Mr. TINKER: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of people gainfully employed in Lancashire in 1921 and the number in 1934, respectively; and the number signing on at the Employment Exchanges for the same periods?

Mr. STANLEY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to a similar question on 30th July last. As regards the second part, the number of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Lancashire at 22nd October, 1934, was 385,915. I regret that a comparable figure for 1921 is not available.

Mr. TINKER: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the number of cotton mills closed down altogether in Lancashire since 1921, and the number employed in the cotton industry of Lancashire at that date; and will he give the latest figures he has in his possession of the number employed now?

found the experiment so satisfactory that they are continuing on that basis?

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot answer in general terms a question like that, but one firm which I believe the hon. Member has in mind—I have not had a chance to study the report—has decided to continue the experiment.

WEST HAM.

Mr. THORNE: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men, women, and young people out of employment in the borough of West Ham on the last day of March, 1933 and 1934, and to the nearest available date?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Mr. STANLEY: Some investigation will be required in order to obtain the information desired. I will send the hon. Member a statement as soon as the information becomes available.

Mr. TINKER: Is any attempt made to examine this question? Is there any procedure for looking ahead to find them work in the future?

Mr. STANLEY: The whole subject is under the closest review. If the hon. Member wants the exact figures that he asks for in his question, it will take a certain amount of investigation.

SHIPYARD WORKERS (TRAINING AS ELECTRICAL WELDERS).

Miss WARD: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has yet been taken to afford at the Wallsend training centre an opportunity to adult shipyard workers, displaced from their own skilled craft, to train as electric welders?

Mr. STANLEY: Arrangements have been made to train in electric welding a limited number of unemployed skilled men in the shipbuilding industry who
cannot secure further employment without such training. Preference will be given to married men with dependants. It is hoped to commence the training early in the new year.

Miss WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if this experiment should prove successful, it will be received with very great satisfaction by the trade unions interested in the matter, and also by those of us who have been alarmed by what is to become of men who are displaced in the shipbuilding industry and who cannot find work?

Mr. STANLEY: I am very much obliged to the hon. Lady for the information.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more electric welders than we can find work for?

Mr. STANLEY: That is not my information.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRIGGS BODIES COMPANY.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether Messrs. Briggs Bodies Company, London, are on the Government list of contractors; whether he is aware that the employ—s of this firm are working from 55 to 60 hours per week without any overtime rates; and whether he will make inquiry as to the possibility of reducing the hours of labour worked by this firm and, if necessary, introduce legislation to make such long hours impossible?

Mr. STANLEY: I am making certain inquiries in connection with these matters, and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION).

Mr. THORNE: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government intends to, ratify the convention concerning the age of admission of children into non-industrial employment, which was adopted at the International Labour Conference at Geneva in 1932?

Mr. STANLEY: The action proposed by the Government is set out in Crud.
4731 which has been laid on the Table and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give, any reasons why the Government are not prepared to ratify this convention?

Mr. STANLEY: Yes. One reason is given in the Command Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARISH COUNCILS ELECTIONS.

Sir PERCY HURD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the scheme for a reform of the method of electing parish councils submitted to his Department by the Rural District Councils Association; and whether, in view of the widespread desire for this reform, he will introduce the necessary amending legislation or, alternatively, favourably regard a private Member's Measure to that end?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, I would remind my hon. Friend that the question of the election of parish councillors was considered by the Joint Select Committee on the Local Government Bill and that the Local Government Act, 1933, which came into force on 1st June last, makes provision for two alternative methods of election of parish councillors. In the circumstances I am not prepared to consider any further legislation on this subject at the present time.

Sir P. HURD: In considering the report of the Rural District Councils' Association, has the right hon. Gentleman discovered that there are certain elements of this proposal which would be of further advantage if they were adopted?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think we will see the result of the experiment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT WATCH PATROL, LTD.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 10.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to a company, registered at Somerset House as the Night Watch
Patrol, Limited, which has for its object the setting up of a special force to guard private property; and whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the setting up of a private police force in this country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been informed that there is a proposal to establish a system for the supply of night watchmen to persons, firms and companies who may wish to employ them, but I have no detailed information as to the proposal. The Government certainly could not countenance the setting up of anything in the nature of a private police force in this country.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that, if the right hon. Gentleman expects the police to be so busily engaged looking for lottery tickets and seditious literature this force will be necessary? Has the hon. Member put the question at the instigation of the amalgamated union of cat burglars?

Mr. WILMOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it to be a fact that the alteration with regard to special duties of constables, whereby these duties are now performed in public time instead of in the constables' private time, is responsible for a considerable shortage of police officers on their normal duties?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — VAGRANCY ACT.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 12.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now state whether he will implement his promise to introduce legislation to amend the Vagrancy Act early in the new session?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I am still unable to say whether it will be possible to find time to introduce legislation on this subject.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on the 2nd May last he undertook to do something at an early date? In view of that undertaking last May, cannot he say now that he is going to find time to do something?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Those matters are governed, not by me, but by the general business of the House. I am not un-
friendly to this proposition, but I cannot commit myself at the present time.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the right hon. Gentleman is not unfriendly and there is a generally friendly feeling in all parts of the House, does he not think that he could get an approved Measure through without much difficulty?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (ASBESTOSIS).

Mr. THORNE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary the number of deaths from asbestosis; whether he has any statistics that show how long is the period between contracting the disease and death: if he is satisfied that every precaution is taken to keep this disease in check; and whether he will take steps to have the regulations enforced in all parts of the factories, including the warehouses?

Sir J. GILMOUR: About 60 deaths have been brought to the notice of the Department and after investigation are all attributed by the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories to exposure incurred previous to the Asbestos Industry Regulations of 1931 which require elaborate precautions. The disease usually takes years to develop and the period between commencement and death varies very widely. Special inquiry in 1932 as to the risks in warehouse and certain other processes revealed no need for any extension of the regulations, but their effectiveness will continue to be closely watched.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in one or two cases men and women working in warehouses have been neglected and have died in consequence? Will he not consider making the regulations effective as far as workers in warehouses are concerned?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say more at the moment; but this problem is being closely watched.

DEATH OF MRS. TAYLOR, MANCHESTER (INQUIRY).

Mr. LANSBURY (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health if he has any statement to make as to the publication of the report of the inquiry into the death of Mrs. Taylor?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have come to the conclusion that the circumstances of this case are so special as to justify an exception to the established rule against publication. I am so informing the city council of Manchester, at whose request I caused the inquiry to be made, and the authorities of St. Mary's Hospital, who concurred in the request.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Miss CAZALET: 20.
asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking in areas where there has been a reduction of the amount spent on the maternity and child welfare services, in view of the fact that an additional amount of £5,000,000 was included in the general Exchequer contribution for each year in the first fixed grant period under the Local Government Act, 1929, to be used for the development of local services, including the development of the maternity and child welfare services?

Sir H. YOUNG: In any case in which there has been such a reduction the first step is to ascertain the reasons for and the effect of the reduction. If there is reason to fear a reduction in the efficiency of the services, I direct a local investigation and make the necessary representations to the local authority. The expenditure of the grant mentioned by my hon. Friend is within the discretion of the local authorities, but it is a condition of grant that they shall maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress in the discharge of their public health functions. As my hon. Friend is aware, the policy of the Government is to secure a development of the maternity and child welfare services and steps have recently again been taken for the purpose. On other occasions opportunity has been taken to emphasise the claim of these services on the additional grant referred to.

BLIND WELFARE.

Mr. T. SMITH: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the National League of the Blind has only one representative out of 20 on the Central Advisory Committee for the Welfare of the Blind; and whether, in view of the fact that the National League is the largest organisation for the blind, he will consider the possibility of giving it additional representation?

Sir H. YOUNG: The composition of the committee was carefully considered from the point of view of giving adequate representation to the interests concerned, without having numbers too large for efficiency. In addition to the member representing the National League for the Blind there is, I understand, another member closely connected with the League. I regret that I cannot undertake at present to add to the size of the committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHARING-OUT CLUBS.

Mr. JANNER: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken to safeguard the moneys contributed to sharing-out clubs and similar associations, particularly in view of the approaching time for the distribution of their funds by such associations?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have been asked to reply. This matter has been considered on many occasions but it has not been possible to find any practicable scheme of compulsory control. I would, however, draw the hon. Member's attention to the scheme for "national savings clubs" announced to-day by the National Savings Movement. This scheme is designed to provide a sound basis of management for any kind of "share out" club and sets out simple model rules for adoption by any club which so desires.

Mr. JANNER: Will the hon. Member take steps to see that this information is circulated as widely as possible?

Mr. COOPER: I will certainly see what can be done.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Will this new scheme come into operation in time for this Christmas?

Mr. COOPER: It is open to anyone now to join the National Savings Clubs.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PROVISION OF MEALS OR MILK (CIRCULAR).

Miss RATHBONE: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider with-
drawing the restriction placed by Circular 1437 upon the freedom of local authorities to give milk or meals free to children on account of their parents' poverty without first requiring a medical inspection, in view of the dissatisfaction it has aroused and of the acknowledged difficulty of detecting the early signs of malnutrition?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend is not prepared to withdraw the Circular. He is satisfied that medical selection on the lines indicated in the Circular affords the best means of securing that those children who need food or milk in fact get it, and that under any system other than that of medical selection there is a danger of overlooking children who require attention. He attaches the highest importance to a close study of defective nutrition and its treatment, and he regards it as in every way advantageous that this part of the work of the school medical service should be closely linked with the arrangements for the provision of meals and milk.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the hon. Member aware that the organ of the local education authorities has condemned this restriction on their freedom, and are not local authorities the best judges of what should be done in this matter?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not much better to prevent children becoming ill rather than to deal with them after they are ill?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think the system of medical inspection is much the best way of doing that.

MEDICAL INSPECTION.

Miss RATHBONE: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the average cost of every special medical inspection, and also of every routine inspection of a school child?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend regrets that in the returns supplied to the board the salaries of school medical officers are not apportioned between the various forms of medical inspection and their other duties, and that, therefore, it is not possible to give the information asked for.

Miss RATHBONE: Is not a cost for inspection of 7s. per child a large expenditure for the purpose of determining whether a child shall receive 2½d. worth of milk?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: There may be a slight increase in the cost, but I hope the hon. Lady and her friends will not grudge a small increase of expenditure in view of the importance of the subject.

Mr. TINKER: How is it that the Parliamentary Secretary always says that his Noble Friend has given him orders. Are we to be always subject to his Noble Friend?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I understand that that is the usual way when answers are given by an Under-Secretary.

Mr. PALING: As the cost of medical inspection is so high, would it not be better to spend the money in giving milk to the children?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

CRYNANT, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. MAXTON: 17.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that about 2,000 miners are travelling to work at Cefn Coed Colliery, Crynant, from all parts of South Wales, involving travelling expenses of 6s. or 7s. a week because there is no housing accommodation for them in the district; that owing to the housing shortage miners are being asked to pay a rent of 15s. a week for the houses to be let in the district; what steps he proposes to take to make provision of houses for these men at rents within their capacity to pay; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to restrict the rents in such circumstances?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware that many miners working in the Neath Rural District are travelling considerable distances to their work. I approved some time ago the erection of 250 houses by the Rural District Council towards relieving the housing shortage and the council have been informed that I am prepared to consider further proposals. I am not satisfied that legislation of the kind suggested in the second part of the question, in addition to the Rent Restrictions Acts, would be either practicable or desirable.

Mr. MAXTON: As the Rent Restrictions Acts cannot protect these people, will the right hon. Gentleman take powers to meet so urgent a case, which he knows will not be met for a considerable time?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think the Rent Restrictions Acts do adequately protect them.

Mr. MAXTON: If a man is earning £2 a week and has to pay 15s. rent, is that adequate protection?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is a position which can be dealt with.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the special problem in relation to housing in a district where a colliery opens and where there are no houses available?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is a situation where the attention of the housing authority is required.

DEMOLITION ORDERS.

Mr. DRUMMOND-WOLFF (for Sir WALDRON SMITHERS): 19.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state how many cases have been brought to his notice where a local authority has sent workmen to demolish a private house without notice and without compensation, and to sell the rubble on the site to pay for the expenses of demolition?

Sir H. YOUNG: Before ordering the demolition of a house the local authority are required to notify the owner. No case has been brought to my notice in which an authority has disregarded this requirement. Where the owner fails to carry out his statutory duty to demolish a house on which a demolition order has become operative, it is, and has been since 1890, the duty of the local authority to demolish it and sell the materials. The legislation makes no provision for compensation being paid in the case of a demolition of a house which is unfit for human habitation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDWAY INSTITUTION (CASUAL WARD).

Mr. T. SMITH: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at an inquest on the death of K. Fulton in the Medway Institution a witness declared on oath that he had been compelled to
sleep on bare boards in the casual ward; and whether, as it is prescribed that beds should be provided in all casual wards, he will say what action he proposes to take to ensure that the Maidstone authorities conform to the regulations?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have made inquiry about this matter and am awaiting a further report. I will then communicate further with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

AMERICAN TIMBER (IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. THORP: 23.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for the instructions given to the various customs houses that the import duties on hardwoods shall be paid on the American lumber code price or the contract price, whichever is the higher; if he is aware that this American lumber code price has been declared illegal by the courts in the United States, at Memphis, Tennessee, that this code price is not now operating, and that purchases are being made by timber merchants in the United Kingdom at 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. below this code price; and if, in view of the fact that this in effect is an increased import duty on timber arriving from the United States and therefore discriminates against that country, he will give the necessary orders to have this instruction cancelled?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The statutory value for duty of imported goods is the price an importer would give in the open market, which is not necessarily the same thing as the price a particular importer has actually given. On the information before me the decision of the Memphis court is not correctly described in the statement of my hon. Friend, and there appear to have been decisions by other courts upholding the legality of the Code prices. There appears, however, to be some reason to think that the Code prices are not at present generally operative, and accordingly, until the position is clarified, the Customs will not apply them in fixing values. There is no question of discriminating against the United States of America.

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (REPORTS).

27. Dr. O'DONOVAN: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange for the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee presented to Parliament to have on their outer cover an indication of the goods to which the Lords Commissioners' orders, therein recorded, apply?

Mr. COOPER: Technical difficulties render the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion hardly practicable, but I am considering whether the form of the White Papers cannot be improved by a freer use of heavy type.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. SHAW: 24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any communication has been received from the Government of the United States of America in respect of the payment of interest on the 15th December next?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such communication has yet been received.

Mr. SHAW: Is the attitude of the Government towards this question the same as in June last?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Before any communication is received, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a Treasury official will in future watch the interests of British holders of bonds of defaulting foreign Governments as in the case of the Anglo-German debt conference, in view of the fact that issuing houses and members of the Council of Foreign Bondholders are at a disadvantage in resisting the imposition of unilateral arrangements owing to having sold the bonds to British holders on behalf of the defaulting Governments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government had a special interest in the case of the Dawes and Young Loans because they were issued under the auspices of the Allied Governments in connection with the Reparation Settlements. Similar considerations do not
apply to other foreign loans, but His Majesty's Government at all times watch closely the interests of British holders of bonds of defaulting foreign Governments, and in particular make every effort to secure that settlements are reached by negotiation with representatives of the bondholders. In many cases of recent defaults, settlements have been reached as the result of negotiations with the Council of Foreign Bondholders or with the League Loans Committee. I am informed that no member of the Council of Foreign Bondholders belongs to an issuing house which has sold bonds on behalf of defaulting foreign Governments, and there is, therefore, no justification for the criticism implied in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be much better for foreign Governments to pay their debts instead of spending so much on armaments?

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENT-CHARGE.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that at the first public hearing of the inquiry into the law relating to tithe many people who desired to hear the proceedings were unable to gain admittance owing to the accommodation provided not being sufficient for this purpose; and will he consider the advisability of securing a larger hall for such meetings in future?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. The conduct of the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Tithe Rent-charge is a matter for the Commission. My right hon. Friend is, however, informed by the chairman that although he regrets that on the morning of the first public sitting some members of the public could not be accommodated, there have been vacant seats on every subsequent occasion, and in the circumstances the existing arrangements appear to be adequate.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can introduce legislation to require that the existence of tithes must be stated on the documents effecting the transfer of land?

Sir G. BOWYER: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the question, of intro-
during legislation on the subject of tithe rent-charge must await the report of the Royal Commission which is now sitting.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE).

Lord APSLEY: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the original causes of infection have as yet been traced which have caused the many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the Western and South Midland Counties of England this month; whether he is yet in a position to state to what causes these outbreaks may be attributed; and whether or not he considers them to be all spread from an original outbreak or to have been caused by different agencies acting independently?

Sir G. BOWYER: Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred during this month in six areas, the majority of the cases being in the Lindsey, Lincolnshire, area. Two outbreaks near Grimsby were probably independent of the other cases in that area, in which, however, the means of spread of infection have not definitely been established. The initial cause of infection in any of these six areas has not yet been traced; in the case of one area, however, namely, that at Thorn-bury, Gloucestershire, it is thought that the outbreak may be the recurrence of a previous outbreak in September. No evidence has been obtained which would indicate that an outbreak in any one of the infected areas has been responsible for the occurrence of disease in any of the other areas concerned. The history of the animals involved and their management in the initial case in each of the affected areas vary widely, which suggests the likelihood of different agencies acting independently.

Lord APSLEY: Has any general cause been discovered as the reason for these outbreaks at the present time?

Sir G. BOWYER: No, Sir.

Mr. MACGUISTEN: Is there any reason to suspect that they are caused maliciously?

Sir G. BOWYER: I think none.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TOLL BRIDGES.

Mr. NORTH: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any schemes for the elimination of toll bridges have been approved by him during the past three months; and whether he is satisfied with the progress being made in this respect?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Since 1st August last two schemes for the elimination of privately owned toll bridges have been submitted to me. In both cases I have informed the highway authority concerned that should their negotiations for the purchase of the bridge prove successful I will look favourably on an application for grant. There still remain 37 toll bridges on classified roads and I shall not be satisfied until they are all freed of tolls.

WOLVERHAMPTON-BIRMINGHAM ROAD.

Mr. MANDER: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to deal with the uneven surface of the new road between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, in view of the general dissatisfaction of those who use it?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The highway authorities concerned have entered upon a programme for the re-surfacing of this road with the assistance of grants from the Road Fund of 60 per cent. of the expenditure and will, I understand, proceed with it as their financial resources permit.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that motoring on this road is like being in a small boat on a stormy sea, and will he urge the local authorities to get on with the work as quickly as possible?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am so much aware of it that I have offered the grant, and I have told my hon. Friend that the local authority will proceed with the work as quickly as its resources permit, which I hope will be very soon.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Does the road run through the hon. Member's constituency?

Mr. MANDER: No, it does not.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member not tell the local authority himself?

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES (BEACONS).

Mr. LEWIS: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport what communications have passed between him and the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee with regard to delaying the erection of additional beacons at crossings until further experience has been gained of their advantages and disadvantages?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On Friday, 9th November, I read statements in the Press to the effect that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee had passed a resolution asking me to call upon local authorities to stop all work in connection with the provision of pedestrian crossing places in London. In these unusual circumstances, I thought it necessary to write that evening to the chairman of the committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth, and to issue the letter for publication. He replied, expressing his deep regret that there had been a breach of the rule that the proceedings of the committee should be treated as confidential and this letter also was published. I have now received a resolution from the committee endorsing the action of their chairman. So far as I am concerned, the matter is disposed of, and I feel sure that I shall receive the co-operation and advice of the committee in the same way as my predecessors and myself have done in the past.

Mr. LEWIS: Does that mean that my hon. Friend intends to proceed with a. great extension of these crossings before those best qualified to judge have come to the conclusion that the existing experiment has been a success?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension if he thinks that that view represents the view of those best qualified to judge. I have announced my programme, and, as this matter has been given publicity, I may say that the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee itself, about three weeks ago, approved the regulations now in force for the use of these crossings and the principles upon which the crossings are laid down. I hope no effort will be made to draw a distinction between myself and my advisers. I have my responsibility to Parliament, and I cannot abrogate it to anyone else.

Mr. WILMOT: In proceeding with this programme, will the Minister have special regard to the visibility of these beacons at night, and does he not agree that the placing of many of them renders them invisible to the motorist, and creates a most dangerous set of circumstances in which both the motorist and the pedestrian believe that they have a right of way?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would like to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the hon. Member's question to make this matter plain. In almost every civilised, city in the world there is a system of pedestrian crossings arid the marking is in steel studs alone. In order to meet the criticism that these steel studs might not be sufficiently visible, I, in conjunction with my engineers, whom I asked to examine this question, sought to find the most visible indication on the roadway that I could possibly put there. The result was that the beacons were discovered. They are an addition to the marking, and do not exist in any other city in the world. I regret very much that they are not totally visible, although much of the criticism I receive would indicate that they are too visible. I regret that they are not visible to everybody, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that there is no marking which in all circumstances and from all angles can be visible to everyone. I have done my very best in the circumstances.

Lord APSLEY: As to these particular beacons, can tenders be obtained for them independently by each local authority or do they all have to come from one contractor through one central authority? Must they be of one particular design or can local authorities make alterations according to their need?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am glad to make that plain too. Every highway authority in this country is autonomous and independent. Every highway authority in whose area crossings have been put down has put those crossings down of its own volition. There has been no compulsion, and every single authority in London has agreed by a majority resolution of its council to have these crossings. It can place its own orders for the beacons and the steel studs, and, although my Ministry took the precaution in order to assist local authorities of trying to make special prices with the
firms concerned, there is no compulsion upon any local authority to buy the beacons or the crossings from any particular firm.

Mr. GEORGE STRAUSS: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Advisory Committee has been put in an invidious position owing to the half revelation of the facts which has recently taken place, a position which may be made worse by his announcement to-day, he does not consider it fair to the committee that there should be a full and accurate revelation of the recent history of events in regard to this matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the Advisory Committee has been put into an invidious position, it has been put into that position by the improper action of certain of its members. It was in those circumstances that the exchange of letters took place between myself and the chairman of the committee, and the committee itself yesterday unanimously endorsed the action of the chairman. I hope that the matter may rest there and that in the future our relations will be cordial and on a proper basis.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport the estimated cost of the beacons so far estimated to be required to mark pedestrian crossing-places in London and the provinces; and how the cost will be divided between local and national funds?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The estimated cost of providing beacons for the full experiment in London is about £20,000. The initial cost will be borne by the Road Fund and the cost of any permanent works divided between the Road Fund and the local authorities in the proportion of 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively. I am not at present in a position to give any figure for the provinces.

Mr. WILMOT: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport what financial liability has been incurred by the local authorities, the Ministry of Transport, and otherwise, in the erection of signs or the preparation of plans for road crossings which have subsequently been adandoned; and how is the cost being met?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware that any pedestrian crossing, laid down under recent schemes in London, has been abandoned?

Mr. WILMOT: Will the Minister take note of the position in regard to several of them, if I send him details—some located within half a mile of this House?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, I shall be much obliged for the assistance of the hon. Member or anybody else who will approach this matter in a helpful spirit.

Mr. HALES: Can the Minister say whether the Ministry of Transport has not under consideration the construction of illuminated pedestrian crossings which would make the illumination of these beacons unnecessary?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. PETHERICK (for Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN): 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that many large borough authorities strongly object to disfiguring their streets with the type of beacon used in London for pedestrian crossings, he will give an assurance that it is not intended to enforce upon municipal authorities in the country any particular form of beacon?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have had no such objection made to me by any highway authority. The weight of opinion on this matter is that some form of special indication, in addition to markings in the road-bed itself, is necessary in present circumstances to give warning to drivers when they are approaching a pedestrian crossing. I think my hon. Friend will agree that, if these crossings are to achieve their object, the signs used in connection with them must be substantially uniform throughout the country.

Mr. PETHERICK: Can my hon. Friend say if the highway authorities have to supply the money to buy these beacons nut of their own funds?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In London the Road Fund pays 100 per cent., subject to a refund by the local authorities of 40 per cent. No arrangement has been made for the rest of the country.

ARTERIAL ROADS (RIBBON DEVELOPMENT).

Miss CAZALET: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his joint study with the Minister of Health on ribbon development has yet been completed; and, if so, what steps he contemplates taking in this matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (WILD LIFE COMMISSION).

Mr. LEWIS: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any further progress has been made with regard to the proposal to create a national park for the preservation of wild life in Malaya?

Mr. DRUMMOND-WOLFF: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the matter of preservation of game in Malaya, in view of the recommendations made in the Wild Life Commission which reported in 1931?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have no very recent information as to the steps taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Wild Life Commission in Malaya. Mr. Hubback, the author of the report, offered his services to the local Government as Honorary Chief Game Warden, and this offer was duly accepted. Certain other measures are, I understand, under active consideration by the local authorities. I am asking the High Commissioner for an early report on the present position.

Mr. LEWIS: In pursuing this matter further, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that it has now been under consideration for some six years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It has not been under my consideration for six years, and I think the hon. Member will bear me out when I say that during my term of office he has been fairly successful in getting action taken all over the world on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL HARD FIBRES GROWERS' ORGANISATION.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of the members of the International Hard Fibres Growers' Organisation; whether they are nominated or elected; who is the British Government representative on the body; what are its objects and its place of meeting; and whether it has independence of action?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of the existence of any international body bearing the title mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SCHOOLS (MILK SUPPLY SCHEME).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in Glasgow are now having a daily glass of milk as a result of the new milk-in-schools scheme; and what is the total number of children in Glasgow having milk in schools?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The Glasgow Education Authority have not yet in operation a scheme for the provision of milk under the new milk-in-schools scheme, but the matter is under their active consideration, and a draft scheme has been prepared. I understand that, when the scheme is in operation, about 142,000 children will be included. At present 5,900 children in Glasgow are having milk in schools.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: How soon may we expect the scheme to be in operation?

Mr. SKELTON: I could not give my hon. Friend an exact date. He will recollect that the scheme was to come into operation on 5th November, but municipal elections and so on have intervened and complicated matters in regard to making arrangements. I would only say that no time will be lost.

HOUSING, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN (for Mr. McGOVERN): 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses, with various State subsidies, owned by the Glasgow corporation; the total amount of arrears of rent by
tenants up to 1st October, 1934; and the highest amount owing by any single tenant, and in what scheme this tenant resides?

Mr. SKELTON: The total number of houses owned by the Corporation of Glasgow as at the 31st October, 1934, in respect of which State subsidies are being paid is 36,092. The total rental of these is £797,491 1s. 8d. The amount of arrears of rent outstanding at 1st October, 1934, was £31,675. There is also the sum of £21,863 3s. which has been written off as irrecoverable during the period from 1919 to May, 1934. The highest amount owing by a sitting tenant is £37 10s. He is resident in the Knightswood Scheme. The highest amount of arrears owed by any person is £67 5s. In this case the debtor is not now a tenant of the corporation. He resided in the Riddrie Scheme.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why is there differentiation between one tenant and another?

Mr. SKELTON: Under the Housing Act all questions of management are matters for the local authorities.

Mr. LOGAN: Are the arrears for the year only?

Mr. SKELTON: If the hon. Gentleman will look at my answer, he will see exactly what the position is.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

EXPORTS (TRADE AGREEMENTS).

Mr. NORTH: 46.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent British coal exports to Germany have increased or decreased during the period since the signing of the Anglo-German trade agreement; and what approximate sum is at present outstanding in respect of payment for coal exported from this country to Germany?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): United Kingdom coal and coke exports to Germany increased by an average of 57,154 tons per month in the period from 1st May, 1933, to 30th September, 1934, over exports in the preceding 12 months. I am unable to say what sum is at present outstanding on account of payments due in respect of these exports,
but United Kingdom creditors are filing particulars with the Board of Trade.

Mr. McKEAG: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the trade agreement entered into with the French Government on the 27th June last is operating satisfactorily; and whether, in in particular, France has entirely carried out her undertaking to import the stipulated minimum quantities of coal from this country?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: On the whole the agreement is working satisfactorily. As regards coal falling within the French quota, steps have been taken with a view to determining whether the imports from the United Kingdom represent the full share of the total imports provided for under the agreement.

Mr. McKEAG: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the French Press recently published a statement by the French Prime Minister in this regard and said that it was established that the imports of British coal showed a decrease of 64,000 tons and not an increase?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot be responsible for statements made in the foreign Press, but we are taking steps to make sure that our allocation which is 49.nt., is given to us.

Mr. McKEAG: Am I to understand from that answer that the Government are not satisfied that there is the full importation of coal by France?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: A suggestion to that effect has been made and we are examining it.

LANCASHIRE (STATISTICS).

Mr. TINKER: 54.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the number of pits in Lancashire which have been closed down completely since 1921 and also the number employed at that date, and the latest figures in his possession of the number employed now?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Since 1921, 174 pits in Lancashire have been adandoned. The number of wage-earners on colliery books at end of October, 1921, was 104,800 and at end of October, 1934, 59,400.

Mr. TINKER: Has the Secretary for Mines been invited to take part in consultation with the Cabinet on the figures for Lancashire in connection with the distressed areas?

Mr. BROWN: I do not think I should be called upon to answer that question.

HUMBER PORTS (EXPORT).

Mr. T. SMITH: 55.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total quantity of coal exported from the Humber ports, respectively, during the nine months ended 30th September, and the comparative figures for 1931, 1932, and 1933?

QUANTITY OF COAL EXPORTED FROM HUMBER PORTS.


Ports.
Nine months ended September.


1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.




Statute Tons.


Goole
…
764,509
548,139
512,127
544,227


Grimsby
…
123,771
102,993
60,641
56,332


Immingham
…
1,202,365
1,125,183
1,157,781
1,167,638


Hull
…
982,085
663,364
647,074
656,876


Total Humber Ports
…
3,072,730
2,439,679
2,377,623
2,425,073

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

BUNKERING STATISTICS.

Mr. NORTH: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increasing tendency of British ocean-going ships to take in oil abroad instead of at home; what are the reasons for this policy; and whether coal bunkering shows any such reaction prejudicial to British interests?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that the statistics of bunkering in United Kingdom ports, in respect both of oil and coal, show an increase this year as compared with last year.

Mr. LYONS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any condition has been attached to the construction of the new Cunarder requiring the liner to be fuelled in this country?

Dr. BURGIN: That is quite another matter.

Mr. BROWN: As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any increase compared with 1931?

Mr. BROWN: There are four sets of figures. There is a decrease as compared with 1931, but an increase compared with September, 1933.

Following is the statement:

STEAMSHIP "CARINTHIA" (DIVINE SERVICE).

65. Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a notice was posted at 7.30 p.m. on Saturday, 11th August, in the Cunard liner "Carinthia," while on a course to the northern capitals, to the effect that divine service next day would take place at 10 a.m.; that Soviet officers were picked up shortly after this notice had been posted, and that at 9.45 p.m. a second notice was posted to the effect that owing to the arrival on board of Soviet authorities it was necessary to cancel divine service; will he state for how long the captains of British ships have been expected by the Soviet Government to cancel divine service owing to the presence on their ships of representatives of the Soviet Government; and whether he will take steps to ensure that religion is not treated in this fashion on British ships, either in the interests of trade or any other interests?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I understand that the Cunard-White Star Company have issued a full explanation of this incident to the Press, from which it is clear that the Soviet authorities were in no way responsible for the alteration of the arrangements for divine service on the occasion to which my hon. Friend refers.

Captain RAMSAY: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to his colleague the President of the Board of Trade to get into communication with the steamship company in order to see that the normal facilities for British passengers on British ships are not interfered with out of respect for Russian or any other citizens?

Mr. EDEN: So far as I am aware, there is no question of that.

Captain RAMSAY: Then will my right hon. Friend tell me how the question arises?

Mr. EDEN: It is clear that there is no question from the statement of the steamship company.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not considered good manners not to refer to holy water in the presence of his Satanic Majesty?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST EROSION, KENT.

Mr. HALES: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the serious erosion of the Kentish coast, particularly between Herne Bay and Birchington-on-Sea, which if not dealt with in the near future will prevent pedestrian and vehicular traffic on that portion of the coast; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter?

Dr. BURGIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In any case I have no power to deal with this matter, which is one primarily for the local interests concerned.

Mr. HALES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very serious matter, and that at no distant date much valuable property will be involved, and we shall see a considerable portion of the British Isles submerged beneath the waves of the North Sea?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR, SERVICES (ACCELERATION AND DEVELOPMENT).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, with a view to discouraging the development of uneconomic foreign competition with existing and contemplated British commercial air routes, he will take an early opportunity of indicating the nature of the new policy which the Government proposes to adopt to enable large-scale developments to take place in respect of such British air routes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As indicated in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. L. Smith) on 7th November, my Noble Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea as to when he will be able to make a statement?

Sir P. SASSOON: At the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. WHITE: 52.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many cases he has found it necessary to refer to the independent panel of specialist medical advisers during the last 12 months; and what the recommendations have been in these cases?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The cases of all kinds in which, owing to serious doubt or difficulty on the evidence, it has been considered advisable to consult the independent medical experts numbered 42 during the year ending 29th September last. In 14 cases their recommendations were in favour of the claim, and all these were accepted by me.

Major MILNER: 53.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that an assurance was given by the Minister of Pensions in May, 1917, that the case of pensioners promoted to a temporary commission, i.e., ex-ranker officers, would not be overlooked in connection with the Royal Warrant then in preparation; and what action has been taken to implement that assurance?

Major TRYON: Special provision was made in the Royal Warrants dated the 1st August, 1917, and the 2nd July, 1920, to meet the case of ex-ranker officers with war disabilities. I will send the hon. and gallant Member copies of these Warrants.

Major MILNER: Would these provisions apply equally to all other officers?

Major TRYON: Portions of these warrants specially relate to the people about whom the hon. and gallant Member asks the question and therefore he has had a reply as to the steps which have been taken in that respect understood that was what he wanted to know.

Major MILNER: I want to know whether ranker officers received any special consideration or only the same consideration as is given to others.

Major TRYON: If the hon. Member will wait and read the warrant, he will see that that is specially mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL WEDDING (DECORATIONS).

Mr. DUNCAN: 56.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his Department is taking steps to decorate the public buildings on the line of route on the occasion of the royal wedding on 29th November; arid Whether he has any information as to similar steps which may be taken by owners of other property on the line of route?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Yes, Sir. Arrangements are being made by my Department to carry out a scheme of decoration consisting of flags suspended from horizontal poles fixed to the roofs or over upper windows of the chief public buildings under my control. The special stands on the line of route are also being decorated with emblems of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent and the national flags of Greece and Denmark. I understand that the Westminster City Council is erecting Venetian masts with pendants, etc., on a definite scheme in Whitehall and Parliament Street and Parliament Square, and is suggesting to occupiers of buildings on and adjoining the line of route that they should decorate their premises. I am hopeful that the efforts of private persons will be added
to, and conform generally to those of the City of Westminster and my Department.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any recommendation as to whether any particular flower should be worn on this day—roses red or violets blue?

Oral Answers to Questions — TAX OFFICE, WOOD GREEN.

Mr. WILMOT: 57.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the premises occupied by His Majesty's inspector of taxes and staff at the Wood Green district, Tudor House, Station Road, N.22, mainly consist of a converted barn, with unsatisfactory ventilation and heating, and that there is serious overcrowding; and whether it is proposed to secure more satisfactory accommodation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am aware, however, that these premises are not entirely satisfactory for continued use as offices, and every effort is being made to secure improved accommodation. I should add that, from inquiries that have already been made, I anticipate considerable difficulties in obtaining alternative premises in the neighbourhood in the near future.

Mr. WILMOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the urgency of finding suitable accommodation for the staff, in view of the fact that the accommodation is very unsuitable, whether it be a Tudor House or a converted barn?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (EX-RANKER OFFICERS).

Mr. JANNER: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give the reasons why the pay of a temporary officer when first commissioned was 2s. 6d. a day less than that of his colleague who received a permanent commission?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The officer who received the extra 2s. 6d. a day was the regular soldier who had been given a permanent commission. The pensioner who received a temporary commission continued to draw his pension while he received full pay as an officer.

Mr. JANNER: Did not the 2s. 6d. extra bring both those officers to the same rate of pay?

Mr. HACKING: No, I think not exactly.

Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, if the rate was almost the same, the argument is still being used by him as to the divergence between the pensions of the two ranks?

Mr. HACKING: The position is that the regular soldier who received a permanent commission was receiving the extra 2s. 6d. a day in the pre-war days. That was continued during the days of the War, but he was not drawing a pension at the same time for the rank he held.

Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, if the two rates of pay were the same, he is still not prepared to give equal treatment for pension purposes to the two ranks, considering that they did precisely the same duties during the War?

Mr. HACKING: They were not in the same position with regard to the receipt of pension during the War, but in a quite different position.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider making the terms of Army Order 159, of 3rd May, 1918, applicable to all officers who were in the same category as regards commission, especially in view of the fact that these more favourable terms were given to soldiers late in the War, when professional soldiers holding temporary commission had been bearing the responsibility of commissioned rank from the beginning?

Mr. HACKING: The Royal Warrant of 3rd May, 1918, applied only to regular soldiers who were serving on that date on ordinary peace attestations. Actually only six combatant officers were affected by the warrant, and my hon. and gallant Friend will find the circumstances more fully explained in paragraph 18 of the report of the Barnes Committee which was presented to the House. I regret that I cannot re-open this question.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that those with longer service and greater experi-
ence should be given the benefit of the increased pay?

Mr. HACKING: This is going over the whole question again. I need only say at this moment that a very serious crisis, so far as the Army was concerned, took place in France in May, 1918, and that necessitated a. special inducement being given to certain men to take commissions, but that does not affect the general question.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: Was not the crisis in 1914 equal to that in 1918?

Major MILNER: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will specify the consequential claims, if any, which would directly arise out of any settlement of the claims of ex-ranker officers?

Mr. HACKING: One class of claim would be that of retired officers who served in the War and attained higher temporary rank, for example, a retired captain who became a temporary lieutenant-colonel; and another class would be that of pensioned non-commissioned officers and men who served again in the War and attained higher ranks, such as a pensioned sergeant who became a warrant officer.

Major MILNER: Is it not a fact that those pensions would not arise directly out of any settlement of any claims of the ex-ranker officer, because he was translated from one class of service to another, but the classes mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were in the same category, either as soldiers or officers, as the case might be?

Mr. HACKING: The hon. and gallant Member says that they would not arise, but I fear they are arising and would arise in future, and it would be very difficult to resist claims of that kind if you granted this claim.

Major MILNER: asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it has been brought to his notice that the policy of his Department in respect to ex-ranker officers who were pensioners prior to being commissioned has resulted, on the one hand, in their not receiving the retired pay of their rank, as for War Office purposes they are considered to be soldiers, and, on the other hand, they are being refused employment as pensioners, as for that
purpose they are considered to be officers; and what remedial action is proposed?

Mr. HACKING: I am not quite sure what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind when he refers to the refusal of employment. I am aware that these ex-officers are not eligible for registration with associations which deal only with ex-regular soldiers; but on the other hand they are eligible for registration with associations which deal with ex-officers.

Major MILNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department issued a circular suggesting that pensioners might apply for positions as auxiliary postmen, and when ex-ranker officers applied they were refused employment on the ground that they were classed as officers?

Mr. HACKING: The hon. and gallant Member did not make reference to that circular in his original question. If he puts down a further question, I will consider it. It was not clear what he wanted in his original question.

Mr. JANNER: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of ex-ranker officers who would have been entitled to larger pensions if the claims of this class of ex-service men in that respect had been granted, and the average rate of pension payable at present to such men and the average rate of pension which would be paid if the claims were granted?

Mr. HACKING: The number was stated to the Barnes Committee to be approximately 2,500. The Association of Ranker Officers placed the average ex-ranker officer's pension at £75. The rate of retired pay under Article 572A of the Royal Warrant was £150 a year in 1924. This rate is now £135.

Mr. JANNER: In view of the facts that the right hon. Gentleman has given in these figures, will he say how he arrives at the figure of £10,000,000 that would be needed to satisfy these claims?

Mr. HACKING: Because of the consequential claims which would follow, which would have brought up the sum to a total sum of about £10,000,000.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: Is is not a fact that there were no consequential claims when the Naval and Marine pensions were dealt with?

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will now reopen the case of the ex-ranker officers, as recommended by the Motion placed upon the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and 317 other Members of the House.

Mr. HACKING: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) on 23rd July last by the Lord President of the Council.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: In view of the fact that more than 50 per cent. of the Members of this House ask for the case to be reopened, does that not outweigh the views of the Ministry?

Mr. HACKING: My hon. and gallant Friend must not ask me that question. That must be put to the Leader of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Lieutenant W. Egan, M.B.E., Royal Munster Fusiliers, an ex-ranker officer, who served for 22 years, from boy to warrant officer, Class I., and for two years as an officer, now only receives a pension of 4s. a day which dies with him, whereas had he remained a warrant officer he would have received 8s. 4d. a day, and his widow would also have received a pension; and whether the case can be reconsidered?

Mr. HACKING: This case falls within the general question relating to ex-ranker officers, and I regret that I am not able to reconsider it. I should add that, had this officer continued to serve as a warrant officer until reaching the age limit in 1925, he would have received 6s. 8d. a day and not 8s. 4d. It must also be remembered that this officer applied for and was granted a temporary commission, drew his soldier's pension in addition to full pay as an officer and on his demobilisation in 1919 received the appropriate officer's war gratuity. The War Office has examined numbers of these cases and I think I may safely say that comparing the position up to the date of demobilisation no officer received less in total emoluments than he would have received had he not been commissioned.

Major MILNER: Since demobilisation have they not been treated a good deal worse?

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR, EAST (SITUATION).

Mr. MANDER: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations or conversations are taking place or have been recently between representatives of the British and Japanese Governments for dealing with the general situation in the Far East, including the future of Manchukuo?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAAR PLEBISCITE (MAINTENANCE OF ORDER).

Mr. MANDER: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of offering to associate a small number of British troops with the main body of the French, for whom arrangements are already in existence, to go to the assistance of the governing commission of the Saar for the suppression of any invasion of the territory, in order to emphasise the fact by a token British military contribution that the action taken is on behalf of the League of Nations and in fulfilment of a collective obligation?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, informed the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, on the 5th November, there has never been any question of the use of British troops to assist in the maintenance of order in the Saar territory; and nothing of the sort on our part is contemplated. I should add that a situation in which the Saar Governing Commission found itself unable to maintain order ought not to occur and I trust will never occur.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that if French troops had to be moved into the Saar, they would be acting to some extent as our representatives as this country is a member of the Council of the League of Nations, and is there not a very strong moral obligation on our part to support them in every way?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Why is it necessary for us to be landed in every conceivable war, as would be the case by compliance with the hon. Member's request?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS TRAFFIC INQUIRY, UNITED STATES.

Miss RATHBONE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the evidence given to the United States of America arms inquiry, that the Soley Armament Company of London had informed its American agents in 1934 that anti-aircraft guns, though they could not be sold direct to Bolivia while it was at war, could probably be sold to an American armament firm for eventual resale to Bolivia; also to the evidence of Mr. Carse, president of the Electric Boat Company of America, that ammunition sold to his firm by Vickers, Limited, had been resold to Peru during that country's dispute with Colombia over the Leticia territory; and whether he will inform the House what precautions are taken by the Government to ensure that the final as well as the immediate destination of munitions licensed for export is known to the Government?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. I have taken note of the evidence to which the hon. Member refers. The hon. Member will doubtless have observed that in the letter which the Soley Armament Company are reported to have addressed to the American Armament Corporation about the possible export of arms to Bolivia, they also said that they must first be informed of the ultimate destination of all arms orders, so that they might submit the name of the purchasing Government to the British authorities and obtain their permission. I should confirm this by saying that an application by any British company for a licence simply to export anti-aircraft guns to their agents in the United tates would have met with a refusal.
The ammunition mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Carse was exported under licence to the Peruvian Government, for whom the Electric Boat Company were acting as accredited agents. It should be added that there was no question of any international restriction of the export of arms to Peru being enforced at the time when the transaction took place.
In the issue of licences for the export of arms the precaution is taken that such licences should only be issued on condition that the owner or shipper, if so required by the Commissioners of
Customs and Excise, shall produce to them proofs to their satisfaction that the goods were delivered to the destination to which those goods were consigned. It is a general rule that licences for the export of war material are only issued for exports to foreign Governments or to their accredited agents for delivery to them.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of Messrs. Vickers himself stated at the annual meeting of the shareholders that he could give no guarantee that arms sold by his firm were not eventually resold to other countries, even to Germany for rearmament; but that he added that nothing was done without the sanction of the Government? If the chairman can give no guarantee, is it not evident that there is grave uncertainty?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot say anything about that. All I can say is that the obligation is clear. Licences for the export of war material are only issued from this country for export to foreign Governments or the accredited agents for delivery to those Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPIRIT DUTIES (POWER ALCOHOL).

Mr. WHITE (for Mr. MALLALIEU): 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the quantity of spirits released for methylation for the production of power alcohol in the years 1932 and 1933, respectively, or for such periods in those years for which figures are available; and whether it is proposed that these spirits should now be made subject to taxation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the first part of the question, the quantities of spirits used in the manufacture of power methylated spirits are shown each quarter in Part VI of the Monthly Accounts of Trade and Navigation; the figures for which the hon. Member asks will be found in the issue for January, 1934. With regard to the second part of the question, the matter is kept under careful observation, but so far I have not felt that action is called for.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,

Poor Law Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Betting and Lotteries Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

STANDING ORDERS.

3.45 p.m.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Public Business, as set out in the Schedule attached hereto, be approved by this House.

SCHEDULE.

Standing Order No. 14 (4), line 2, alter 'supply,' insert and the consideration of the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Estimates.'

Standing Order No. 47 (5), line 11, at the end, insert, and under Standing Order No. 28 (as to selection of Amendments).'

Leave out Standing Order No. 49.

Standing Order No. 74, line 5, after expenditure,' insert, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit.'

Standing Order No. 80 (3), line 5, leave out from House,' to end of the Standing Order, and insert new paragraph,—
'(4) Mr. Speaker shall nominate, at the commencement of every Session, a Chairmen's panel of not less than ten members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means. From this panel, of whom the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman shall be ex-officio members, Mr. Speaker shall appoint the Chairman of each Standing Committee and may change the Chairman so appointed from time to time. The Chairmen's panel, of whom three shall be a quorum, shall have power to report their resolutions on matters of procedure relating to Standing Committees from time to time to the House.'

The House will remember that just before the Adjournment for the Summer Recess I answered a question put down by the acting Leader of the Opposition with regard to a report which had been presented on Procedure. The answer will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The committee, some of whose recommendations we have put down to-day upon the Order Paper, was set up under the auspices of the late Government. They had not concluded their work when the Dissolution of Parliament occurred, and the work was resumed during the earlier lifetime of the present Government. It was completed and the report has been in the hands of all hon. Members. The committee was drawn from all parts of the House. They were Members of considerable experience, and the report was unanimous. The recommendations which are on the Order Paper to-day are taken
direct from their report, with the solitary exception of one dealing with Standing Order No. 74, which was recommended by the Public Accounts Committee. When recommendations of this kind are made unanimously by a committee drawn from all parties in the House and consisting of Members of experience who have heard evidence, it is obviously the duty of the House to take into very careful consideration what they recommend, but of course the decision of the House is one that rests entirely with Members. These are matters that affect the daily life of Parliament and the daily life of Members, and it is always understood in the House that in these matters there should be the fullest freedom of discussion, and, moreover, that we should attain, if possible, a very general measure of agreement.

It might be for the convenience of Members, and might possibly save tune in the long run, if I were to make a few observations on the points in the Motion which stands in my name. The first Amendment in the Schedule which is proposed reads:
Standing Order No. 14 (4), line 2, after? supply,' insert 'and the consideration of the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Estimates.'
If that Amendment be passed, it will permit the House to discuss matters of importance and of interest connected with the work of the Public Accounts Committee. We have no facility for doing that at the present time unless such matters should be brought down by some special motion in the House, and very often there is considerable difficulty, when Supply Days come along, in finding time for that. I think there is everything to be said for provision being made for the opportunity of debate. I differ from the opinion expressed that a day or any number of days should be specifically allotted for this purpose, and for this reason. It is well known to hon. Members that a great deal of the work on the Public Accounts Committee is of rather a technical character, involving examination of the details of the accounts of the military services and of the Civil Service, and it may quite well be that a. Session may pass in which no matters arise of such general public interest that anyone would desire to
bring them forward in the House. Therefore, we think it is preferable for the House to have the option of debating these subjects if it is so desired.

As is well known, the Opposition of the day have the call on the subject on Supply Days, so that it will always be open to them, if there be any subject which the Public Accounts Committee represent to them as deserving further debate in this House, to ask for such a discussion. I understand that it is the view of the Opposition, which doubtless will be expressed during the course of the Debate, that such a proposal is fair and reasonable, and I think it is one which would be of benefit to the House. I know from long experience that sometimes, especially towards the end of the Session, it is not easy to get a very pertinent debate on a subject. Some supply services have been discussed and debated until there is nothing more to say about them, and sometimes there are subjects which one may think worthy of discussion but which do not interest the Opposition, and I think it will be of material assistance to have the function of Supply widened to this extent, and I think it will be, on occasions, of real service to the House of Commons as a whole.

I will pass to a cognate Amendment:
standing Order No. 74, line 5, after expenditure,' insert and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit.'
That is an Amendment of the Standing Orders which we have inserted in reply to a unanimous request in a special report of the Committee of Public Accounts in this Session. The reason for it, I think, is obvious, and when I have stated it I feel there will be no difference in the House as to the propriety of this request. If the terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee be strictly interpreted they have no power to deal with any other accounts than the Appropriation Accounts of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, of the Civil and Revenue Departments and the Consolidated Fund Account. From a very early date the Committee have not taken so limited a view of their responsibilities, and there are one or two accounts, like the Greenwich Hospital Accounts, which they have investigated for many years; but of
recent years a number of accounts of first importance have been laid before Parliament which certainly ought to be examined. As a matter of fact they are being examined, but I think it would be much better if we could change the terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee so as to regularise what is the practice to-day and is a desirable practice. I refer to such accounts as the National Health Insurance Fund, the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the Road Fund, the Miners' Welfare Fund and the Wheat Fund. It may well be that the tendency of modern politics will increase the number of these Accounts, and I think this is a change which ought to be made, and I feel confident that it is one which the House will approve.

Then I come to the Amendments which deal with the proposal which is most novel which is made by the Committee, that is, the proposal to assimilate the practice in Committee upstairs to the practice in this House by giving powers to Chairmen upstairs to select Amendments. There are three Amendments dealing with that point:
Standing Order No. 47 (5), line 11, at the end, insert and under Standing Order No. 28 (as to selection of amendments).'

Leave out Standing Order No. 49.

Standing Order No. 80 (3), line 5, leave out from House,' to end of the Standing Order, and insert new paragraph:
'(4) Mr. Speaker shall nominate, at the commencement of every session, a Chairmen's Panel of not less than 10 Members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means. From this Panel, of whom the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairman shall be ex-officio members, Mr. Speaker shall appoint the Chairman of each Standing Committee and may change the Chairman so appointed from time to time. The Chairmen's Panel, of whom three shall he a quorum, shall have power to report their resolutions on matters of procedure relating to Standing Committees from time to time to the House.'
The last named Amendment deals specifically with the powers proposed to be conferred. Everyone will agree that the power to select Amendments throws heavy responsibility on the Chairman. I remember very well the Debates on the occasion when such powers were conferred in the House itself. For many years, both as a Member of the Government and in Opposition, I frankly confess I thought this practice desirable, and yet I was doubtful, I was a little
apprehensive about the experiment. We have here an impartial body which has examined most thoroughly this whole question. They have heard evidence both for and against the proposed change, and they unanimously recommend that this change should be tried. It is, frankly, an experiment and I think it is one which is well worth trying.

Recognising that this will be an experiment upstairs they have, as I think wisely, made certain alterations, which, I understand, are also agreed to unanimously in the method of selection of the Chairmen, and the omission of such a portion of the Standing Order as we propose to omit deals with the existing Panel, which will be abolished if these Amendments are supported by the House, and we shall have in the future a Panel selected by Mr. Speaker, who, I understand, has expressed his willingness, if the House so desire, to select the Members of that Panel—a Panel of not less than 10 Members who will act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House when requested to do so by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is proposed that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman shall be ex officio Members of the Panel. This Panel will serve two purposes. The duties of the Panel will become interchangeable between Committee of the Whole House and the Standing Committees upstairs. Thus it is hoped that the Members of the Panel will have opportunities of gaining experience in the conduct of the House which will be valuable to them in the discharge of their duties as Chairmen of Standing Committees.

I think it is important that the change of practice should be marked by a change in the method of appointing the Chairman. The two things should stand or fall together. The wording in the latter part of the Amendment seeks to give the Panel an existence as a body, and to enable it to formulate Resolutions to regulate procedure in Standing Committees, which is a function that has hitherto been performed by the Chairman of the Panel. I believe that this is a change which might well be made, and I believe that the method of appointment and the new functions, if I may so put it, of the Members of that Panel, will add a weight and dignity to an office which has always been esteemed in this
House as one of great responsibility, and will make it still more than it has been in the past, an office that may well be desired by Members whose gifts run rather to directing debate than taking part in it, because there are men who very often have peculiar gifts for controlling debate in the House. I am not endowed with those gifts, but I admire them very much. I do not think that I should have the patience, but I do respect men who have them, and I regard those gifts as one of the most important in this House, because, after all, a Panel of that kind is the nursery of those whom we hope in long years to come may succeed in that historic Chair.

It is for these reasons—and I have put the Motion as succinctly and as clearly as I can—that we have put down these Amendments on the Order Paper. I commit them as a whole to the good will of this House, and I shall try, as far as I am able, to meet the objections that can be met, or to answer any questions to which answers may be desired in the course of the discussion.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We on this side of the House agree broadly with the proposals which have been brought before us. I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, because we have other business to-day of very great importance, and of interest to very many Members. Therefore, I shall abstain from dealing at any length with the general question of our Standing Orders. I would only say that we think there are further amendments and alterations which might be made to the advantage of the business of the House. With regard to these specific proposals, we agree with the first proposal to enable the report of the Public Accounts Committee or of the Estimates Committee to be discussed on allotted days. On the other hand, we have to regard the rights of the Opposition in respect to Supply Days. There may be occasions in which there is not very great pressure on Supply Days, and in which, therefore, the reports of those Committees might very well be discussed by the House; but there may be occasions when there is very great pressure on Supply Days, and we think it would be only reasonable that when that is so, the Government should put down a Motion to increase
the number of allotted days. As Members are aware that can be done under the Standing Orders.
I agree entirely with regard to the Amendment as to the accounts which are laid before Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee. With regard to the proposal as to Chairmen of Committees and as to the powers of those chairmen, we agree that Chairmen of Committees upstairs should be given these powers. Although we are in Opposition, we do not take any different line on this question from what we would take if we were in office, because we consider that when the time comes in which we shall be in office, we shall be concerned to see that this House does its work properly and expeditiously. Undoubtedly, every Member knows that time is wasted upstairs owing to the lack of a reasonable amount of control over Debates. I think the Amendment here is needed. At the same time, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) has an Amendment down which is designed to safeguard the use of that power, so that it shall be used to see the that full Debate is allowed, and not merely for rushing business through. We agree that if these powers are to be given to Chairmen of Committees upstairs, there should be a reform in the method of their appointment. We think it right that Mr. Speaker should nominate the Chairmen's Panel.
There is a point I would like to ask, and that is as to the exact intention with regard to the allocation of work to Standing Committees. I am not clear as to whether it is intended that when Mr. Speaker appoints the Chairmen of Standing Committees he will also allocate the Bills to the Committees, or whether that is going to be left to the Chairmen's Panel. There is one other matter about which I should like to ask, and that is with regard to proposals as to the Guillotine. I do not know if I am in order in referring to that. It is one of the proposed changes, but it is not actually included in this Notice of Motion. The proposal is that under the Guillotine there should be a discussion as to the allocation of time, and it is suggested that time should be allocated by a small committee representative of the Opposition parties and Members specially interested in a Bill. I should like to ask the Gov-
ernment whether that is merely a reference to informal conversation through the usual channels, or whether it is proposed that in future, when a Time-Table Motion is applied, there should be a Motion setting up a formal Committee to consider the allocation of time. I do not wish to detain the House any further on these points, except to say that, in general, we think these proposals will make for the better use of the time of the House, and we do not think that they infringe the fair rights and opportunities of the Opposition, or unduly strengthen the Government against private Members.

4.11 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: The question of the Procedure of the House of Commons is one of the most important subjects that the House can be called upon to consider, and it is of special importance to the private Member. Therefore, the House will be well advised to scrutinise very carefully indeed any proposals that are made for changing its Rules. These changes are supposed to be chiefly on the recommendations of the Committee on Procedure which reported some time ago. Some of the recommendations which the Committee made have been accepted, and some of them have not, and it would have been well, I think, if we had had an explanation as to exactly why recommendations which were made have not been accepted. The Prime Minister, a few days ago, in referring to this Motion, said it was to give effect to recommendations that had been made by that Committee, but I think I am right in saying that the recommendation in the last paragraph of the Schedule was not contained in the recommendations reported by the Committee on Procedure. It would have been well, therefore, if we had had from the Leader of the House a little explanation as to why the Government have gone out of their way to do something beyond what had been recommended by the Committee.
I have no objection at all to the recommendation in the first part of the Schedule, that included among the days of Supply there should be discussion of other than Votes set down at the request of the Opposition, but the question of giving 'a Chairman of a Standing Committee power of selection in regard to Amendments is a very great change indeed, and the House, if it is going to
adopt it, ought clearly to understand what is its effect. I hope I have not given Members to believe, by the way they have cheered, that from what I said just now I am against this particular proposal. I have gone into it very carefully, and I do not think the House can refuse the Chairman of a Committee this increased power. If he has not this increased power, it seems to me that a minority of a Standing Committee may be able to reduce the work of a Committee upstairs to a farce, and in many cases it has done so. If we are to permit a minority of that kind to continue in the future as it has done in the past to make a farce of the proceedings upstairs, we shall do something which is not consonant with the dignity of the House of Commons, and that dignity is very important indeed. I, therefore, do not think that the House of Commons can refuse, to the Chairmen of Standing Committees this increased power. But we must understand that it is a very great power they are going to receive. You are going to put a Chairman of a Standing Committee in a position of judicial importance, and much greater care will be required in the future in making those appointments. I think the House ought to give attention to that fact. I agree that this increased power should be given to the Chairmen but I would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman did not include in the Schedule the Recommendation of the Committee with regard to the sitting of the Committee. On page 15, in paragraph (vii), the Select Committee on Procedure said:
Your Committee recommend that the Standing Orders should be so amended as to reintroduce, so far as Standing Committees are concerned, the old rule that Committees should not sit during the time that the House is sitting without obtaining the leave of the House to do so.
You are going to give the Chairman a great power to limit Debate. If they have that increased power the Committee ought not to be able further to oppress a minority by compelling them to sit upstairs while the House of Commons is, considering matters of great importance downstairs. It is not for the good of the House that, when it is supposed to be considering matters here hon. Members should be sent upstairs to consider something else. I hope that it is not too late for the right hon. Gentleman to in-
clude in the Schedule a paragraph incorporating in the changes this proposal which was made by the Select Committee on Procedure.
I now come to the last proposal of the Committee, which is one with which I do not entirely agree. I have no objection to Mr. Speaker making the selection if it be considered necessary, but if the change be made we ought to be told why. It is difficult for Members of the Selection Committee, and particularly Members of the Chairmen's Panel, not to imagine that the conduct of their duties in the past has not been quite satisfactory, in view of the fact that the Government propose to make a change. The Government ought to tell us exactly what has been wrong in the past in the method by which these Chairmen of Committees have been appointed. At the present time, the Committee of Selection are appointed by the House, the Committee of Selection set up a Panel of Chairmen, and the Panel of Chairmen themselves allocate one of their number to take the Chair at a particular Committee on a particular Bill. So far as I know, although it may be a roundabout way, that has worked well in the past, and, if it has not worked well, the Leader of the House ought to tell us in what respect it has not worked well and why he proposes to change it; otherwise, I am inclined to think that the Selection Committee, and particularly the Chairmen, will feel that they have received censure at his hands.
Even if the House considers that this change ought to be made I would like hon. Members to consider if it be necessary for the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman to be ex-officio members of the Chairmen's Panel. In the old days, the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy-Chairman were very much more party agents than they are to-day, but there is no doubt that they are in closer contact with the Government of the day than, we will say, the Chairmen's Panel that makes these appointments. I have no suggestion against the present Chairman of Committees or the Deputy-Chairman, but things may change, and I have some suspicion as to the desirability of giving the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy-Chairman power of selection of the Chairmen of Committees upstairs. I agree that they are not given this power
in so many words, but their position as members of this Panel would be bound in future to develop in such a way that they might be able to control the Committees and particularly the appointment of the Chairmen. In future they may be very much in the control of the Government of the day. I therefore think that there is something to be said for keeping the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy-Chairman entirely outside this machinery. By that means I believe that private Members, and the House as a whole would be able to control their procedure without the intervention of the Government. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider these criticisms, which are not directed at the proposal as a whole but are put forward as constructive criticisms in the hope that some improvement may be possible in the proposals that have been made.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not entirely in agreement with all that has been said in the speech to which we have just listened, but I am sure that the House agree that it was a far more valuable contribution, a critical and constructive contribution, to our discussion, than the usual echoing applause with which the Socialist party so frequently greet the proposals of the National Government. To this particular set of proposals their attitude has naturally been, if I may say so without disrespect, that of hungry cats purring at the prospect of a brimful dish of cream, about to be handed to them, they hope, at no great distance of time. We are indebted to the Lord President of the Council for his succinct—as he called it, and quite rightly—lucid and uncoloured account of what is now proposed. I must say in passing that it would have been more in accordance with precedent if a statement of this kind as to the conduct of Debate and upon the procedure of the House had been made by the Leader of the House of Commons, but we have to recognise that in the right hon. Gentleman we have one who has previously held those great offices with distinction. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the first place the proposal that the Reports of the Select Committee on Estimates and of the Public Accounts Committee could be placed more con-
veniently before us on a Supply Day. I think we shall not make any objection to that. It seems a very valuable and desirable reform.
Upon the question of the selecting of the Chairmen of Committees by you, Mr. Speaker, instead of their being selected by the Committee of Selection as has been the long traditional custom, there is, I think, some matter for debate, as the speech to which we have just listened from the Liberal benches has shown. It is a change which the House may decide to make—indeed, I cannot doubt that the House would make any change it was asked at the present time by the Government, supported as they are by the Opposition—and it would be a pity if hon. Members made that change without realising the setting in which these circumstances lie. I was not aware, in the first place, that the old system had broken down. I had thought that the Committee of Selection and the Chairman of the Committee of Selection had exercised their function in a manner which in no way called for stringent reform, or for the removal from them of the discretion and authority which they had hitherto exerted.
I understand from the Lord President of the Council that you, Sir, have expressed willingness to accept any additional function in this respect that the House may desire to cast upon you, but I must say that this proposal to remove decisions of this kind from the purview of a Parliamentary Committee to the authority of Mr. Speaker—to whom I refer, I need scarcely say, with the most profound respect—is contrary to the general drift of Conservative opinion in other matters connected with Parliamentary affairs. For instance, one of file most important issues with regard to the Parliament Act, the certifying of money Bills, was that this matter must be removed from the ipse dixit of Mr. Speaker and placed upon a joint Committee of Privileges conferring between the two Houses. This is a proposal which runs counter to what may be considered in much larger matters to be the main stream of Conservative opinion.
There is another aspect of this matter. The old view, the traditional view, has been that the Members of the House of Commons, the ordinary Members—I think
we had the expression the other day, "the common or garden" Members of the House—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Led up the garden.

Mr. CHURCHILL: —were capable of conducting the business of the House to a very large extent without undue interference by the Executive. Ordinary Members were chosen by the Committee of Selection from other ordinary Members, because of qualities which had become known in the ordinary course of Parliamentary business, to discharge the function of a Chairman of Committee. That was the idea. The whole procedure was in the hands of the House as a whole, and was left there unmanaged either by the executive government or by the august authority of the Chairman of Committees, which have been limited to the major and main aspects of our Parliamentary life. This proposal seems to have the elements of creating a peculiar class of Members who specialise in selecting Amendments and other matters of Parliamentary procedure, and who would be, as it were, removed by an invisible but no less perceptible barrier from the ordinary run of the Members of the House of Commons. Whether that is a good thing or not every Member must judge for himself, and I am not at all seeking to pronounce in any decided manner upon it.
It is a new feature altogether that there should be in the House 10 Members associated with the Chairman of Committees and with the Deputy-Chairman, all under the nomination of Mr. Speaker, and who would, as it were, specialise in this class of work, and that those responsibilities will be transferred to this special class from the general body of Members of the House of Commons. It must be well worthy of consideration by the House whether any slight gain in efficiency—I fully admit that there is same—is not more than offset by the change in Parliamentary custom and tradition. On-this, let me point out that while everyone has the greatest confidence in your decisions, impartiality and great knowledge of the aptitudes of Members of all parties, we cannot legislate upon the basis that you will always be the occupant of the Chair.
We have to think also of the future in dealing with the Procedure of the
House of Commons. Parliaments come and go, and there have been many precedents in our history for the election of partisan Speakers. Indeed, the greatest strife and struggle, when a new Parliament began its labours, used to be that which occurred in choosing a Speaker who would be the effective agent of one party or another. Suppose that a period should come of violent political strife, a period of revolutionary change, when there would be a whole mass of enormous Bills to be passed through, with all the Committees working at once, as well as the House, with the greatest activity; and suppose that a Speaker were appointed by the dominant and triumphant party, and the whole of the 10 Chairmen of Committees were equally so appointed. The conditions would be wholly different from any that we live in at the present time, arid it seems to me that in these hypothetical but possible conditions you might easily get a sort of uniformity throughout the whole of the chairmanships of these Committees which would be very detrimental to the fair play which is the right of minorities, and might conceivably be even more detrimental to the prosperity and well-being of the State. I think, Mr. Speaker, that on the question of the creation of a special corps d'elite of chairmen under your eye or the eye of your successors, as against the practice of letting it, as it were, well up from the good sense and good feeling of the ordinary Members of the House of Commons, the House should balance the two alternatives in their minds before they give their decision.
I come now to what is to my mind the much more important question of the powers which are to be given to this new class of Chairmen of Committees. The hon. Gentleman who represented the Liberal party made, in his interesting speech, no concealment of the fact that this is a very important change, and not the sort of change that ought to slip through without anybody in the House even taking the trouble to mark it. Although we may see our liberties and rights fading away, or falling away, step by step, and although we may have no power to resist the will of the administration in collusion—or rather, I will not say in collusion, but in association—with the will of their political opponents, nevertheless it is only right that the
steps on this downward path should be registered and marked, and that Parliament and the public should be well aware of what they are doing.
This kind of proposal, if my right hon. Friend will allow me to say so, arises from what I think is a wrong view of the major functions of Parliament. Parliament is not a mere apparatus for passing Bills. A not less important function is preventing bad Bills from passing. Parliament has many functions apart from its legislative function, and it seems to me to be absolutely essential that people should not try to shape our procedure as if perfection would be attained when legislation was most easy. Most Bills, I believe, cost money, lose votes, create officials, and worry the public, and certainly Parliament has to stand between the great mass of the public and the strong pressure of organised sectional interests, or organised party interests, which from time to time endeavour to imprint their special wishes, or convictions, or fads, upon our Statute Book.
The practice of Parliament must be judged, not by quantity, but by quality. You cannot judge the passing of Bills by Parliament as you would judge the output of an efficient Chicago bacon factory. Out of doors this ignorant idea is much cherished, and you frequently hear people say: "Why don't they sit all the year round, and pass all the Bills they are asked to pass?" But the country would be thrown into great confusion if there were not corrective counter-checks, and if there were not Conservative elements in the country which are not anxious to see continuous rapid change, and all our affairs thrown into a state of flux. It is important, in a well-governed country like this, where so much has been achieved in the past, that a certain amount of time should be given for people to accommodate themselves to circumstances, and for troubles and difficulties to pass away, rather than that they should always be dealt with by petulant and impatient legislation.
In the last 25 years out of the 34 that I have been in the House—indeed, almost since I was first elected, but in the last 25 years particularly—possibly I have conducted through this House more legislation, social and other, than anyone except perhaps the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and possibly my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I have done it in all sorts of conditions, sometimes when there were the most tremendous controversial issues at stake, and when the two great parties, with only a majority of 100 between them, were ranged upon these benches fighting every inch—every Clause, every Sub-section, every word, every syllable, almost every comma; and I was never aware that it was not possible for the Government of the day, with patience and with a reasonable use of their Parliamentary powers, to get their legislation through. What has happened all of a sudden to this Government that it is not able to get its legislation through? I should have thought that the Government had no difficulty about getting their legislation through—that their only difficulty was to think of good legislation to bring before us. What is the trouble? When the Government have this overwhelming power, this colossal majority, this perfervid affection and agreement by the Opposition, what is the need for coming forward at this juncture and making new prunings from the limited shrub of the rights of private Members and of Parliamentary liberty? I have heard nothing from my right hon. Friend which shows us where we are. It looks to me as though we were called together for a month to deal with matters which I imagine would far better have been left undealt with, and, there being a little spare time, this additional improvement in the powers of the Executive and of the Government, in conjunction with the Opposition, over the House of Commons, has been thought to be a very good topic to introduce on one of the closing afternoons of our Session.
I have never argued, and never will argue in this House that a minority should have the power of resisting the settled will of Parliament by dilatory processes, but that has never been the case. They ought not to have that power, they have never had it, and they have not got it now. Surely the Government have quite enough power at the present time, without seeking to add to that great mass of authority which in many respects they seem unable to use. This proposal that the House should make a further surrender of its powers and rights to the Executive—for that is what
it comes to—must also be judged in connection with the decision which the Government enforced upon the House, or extracted from the House, about moving Bills from the consideration of a Committee upstairs down to the Floor of the House, or, as one may imagine  per contra, from the Floor of the House to a Committee upstairs. That is a principle which has now been established by the House. It seems to me that a very unsatisfactory situation will arise if, when great Measures are going through the House, parts of them are shifted upstairs, and then parts of them are brought down here—a new Parliamentary process which I venture to define, even before it is put into practice, as shuttlecocking—moving Measures from a Committee to the House and back again, so that neither the Committee nor the House will give full, comprehensive study and debate to the Measure in its integrity, but only to a clipped and shorn series of proposals, some dealt with upstairs and some dealt with here. Proposals of this kind, used by an unscrupulous Government, or a Government which desired to carry through really revolutionary legislation, might perhaps at no great distance of time be found to be of immense consequence to all of us who sit here.
It seems to me that the proposal to extend the power of selecting Amendments to the Chairman of Committees upstairs ought to he very carefully watched by the House. I must say that I myself prefer the Kangaroo Closure. I believe that the Kangaroo Closure is a perfectly effective agent for the passing of Bills, and greatly preferable to the power of selecting Amendments. I remember that we used it a great deal in the struggles before the War, and, although it often excited anger, it is not the same kind of thing as the arbitrary power of selecting Amendments. [HON, MEMBERS "The Guillotine."] I am not talking about the Guillotine at all; I am talking about the Kangaroo Closure. Let us be clear about the terminology. By the Kangaroo Closure I mean the power of the Minister to move, with the assent of the Chair, that a Clause, or even two Clauses, shall stand part down to a certain line or word. The Kangaroo Closure moves on along the face of the Clauses, and it is a very great power. It cuts out all the Amendments relating to the parts which have been dealt with up to that point.
But I would put it to the House and to my right hon. Friend that, with all its severity, the Kangaroo Closure rests in the hands of the House, because the House has immediately to pronounce upon it. A vote is put to the House, and it is the act of the House; and, if a lot of Amendments are cut out, they are cut out by the House. If after the Closure has been carried and a second Division has been taken, there is great feeling in the House—and I have often seen it on these occasions—it is open to those who are opposing the Bill to obtain the assent of the Chair to a Motion to report Progress or to adjourn the Debate. It is then possible to consider the matter, and very often some easier arrangement is made, and some reparation afforded on the Report stage to those who have been prevented from discussing important Amendments.
I consider that the Kangaroo Closure, severe as it may be, and perfectly capable, as it is, of carrying the largest legislation—we carried the Home Rule Bill and the Parliament Act under it—is entirely adequate, and is preferable to what occurs now, which, although I need scarcely say it, is perfectly agreeable to everyone because of the great fairness and discretion and scruple with which it is administered, is inherently an arbitrary procedure. Any number of Amendments may be simply ignored without any reason being given, or any power or right on the part of any Member to ask for reasons or make a protest. To extend that power to these ten Chairmen upstairs, who are to be controlled by the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy-Chairman, is, I think, unduly and needlessly to curtail the rights of the House. It is, of course, quite easy to understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite support all this. They look forward eagerly to the assumption of power; they have a firm belief that they will be able by passing Bills to make everything much better for everyone in this country—

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want to give way. I do not want to delay the House unduly, because I am sure we all want to get on with the Debate on the distressed areas. If the hon. Gentleman
will allow me to say so, it seems to me to be very natural that the Socialist party should wish to have this.

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be critical of the power of Mr. Speaker to select Amendments on the Floor of the House. Was he not a member of the Government that gave him that power?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I fully accept what has been decided, that there vas given to Mr. Speaker and the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman this power to select Amendments, but I consider that procedure a more arbitrary one than what is called the Kangaroo Closure—giving the Closure on a considerable number of lines on the face of the Clauses of a Bill. Power to use the Kangaroo Closure already belongs to Committees upstairs provided the House assents in any particular case. Then why, if this very effective and powerful Kangaroo Closure be already in their power, is it necessary to substitute this power to select Amendments?
I hope the House will consider that there are two sides to this question, and I hope it will not be supposed, because the Government and the Opposition are in agreement, that no one need worry or be anxious about it. I have put these few remarks before the House in order that they may be considered during the course of the Debate. I address myself particularly to the Lord President of the Council when I say that the vitality and life of the House of Commons is one of the real interests of those who wish to see constitutional government maintained. To crush out the liberty of the House of Commons and make it an organised voting machine will detract from its influence in the country. I am shocked that, when a whole afternoon is available for discussing these reforms in Parliamentary procedure, no more constructive plans have been put forward. I saw a report of a Conservative Committee which had most admirable plans for improving the Procedure of the House, for enabling us to have Debates with short speeches and so forth. I am sorry that when my right hon. Friend has come to put these Measures forward, he has not found it possible to adorn them with constructive measures which would have the effect of adding to the dignity
of the House, but has only found it possible to make proposals for larger encroachments upon our old liberties.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to associate myself with the criticisms offered by the right hon. Gentleman though I want to add this word of protest. He says we have an afternoon available to discuss this matter, but we are discussing it under the feeling that we are stealing time from the overmastering consideration of the depressed areas. I want to protest to the Lord President of the Council, who puts the matter before the House, that after a Committee has been considering this matter for an extended period of time the final result of all its deliberations should be placed before us on the last effective day of the Session and with only a breathless opportunity of pronouncing upon it, because we do not want to interfere with the other discussion which is the main business of the day. I suggest even now, having laid the matter before the House, and speeches having been made which indicate the importance of what we are being asked to do, having given the matter as it were its first airing, it should now, or in the course of a. very short time, be withdrawn and introduced in the next Session.
I can remember the genesis of this matter. If I am not mistaken, it arose because there was in a previous Parliament considerable agitation among back bench Members, particularly on the Government side of the House—it arises in every Parliament—a large proportion of Members on the back benches, men who have been playing active and responsible parts in various activities outside the House, who have been heads of businesses or involved in trade union work or carrying on professional work, and after they have been here for some six months they find that they are reduced to nothing but. voting machines. They found it irksome. They wanted to feel that the House gave them fuller opportunities for exercising their experience, their knowledge and their skill. The agitation was for a change in the Procedure of the House. One of the principal suggestions was that round about each Government Department should be associated a, group of Members who were specially interested in this work, and that they
should be drawn into more responsible parliamentary work than merely walking through the Lobbies when the Whips called them.
This is really not something which gives the rank and file Member a bigger status, but something which makes him more of a robot still. I am amazed at the speeches made from the Labour Front Bench and by the hon. Member behind me. I am glad that he made criticisms, but he promised support, which means to say that the private Member in any part of the House is faced with this great coalition. I ask my hon. Friends behind me if they did not make a mistake when they withdrew and came across here—if their hearts are not still in the coffin there with Caesar? I suggest that hon. Members above the Gangway should cease to denounce the Prime Minister as a traitor and should hail him as a great pioneer who has crossed the Rubicon before them. It is reducing Parliament to a very empty farce indeed if we are to be presented with a situation in which the private Member becomes tied up with the Standing Orders. It is in keeping with the spirit of the age. We are being mechanised. We are being run on the roads by robots and Belisha beacons. We might as well throw up the sponge and accept the complete mechanisation of our souls. I hope it works out in the next world because a soul—an intellect—seems a futile possession to have in this world at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman says this is experimental. I hope I am not so conservative as always to want to resist experiments, but if I am going into a laboratory to experiment I want to know that the door is open so that I can get out in the event of an explosion. I know that it took years to get to the point of inserting these Amendments in the Standing Orders. The Lord President knows that, once they are inserted, it will require another agitation to bring them out. Has he any proposal for limiting the period of operation till the House sees whether they work satisfactorily or not? He says they are left entirely to the free discussion of the House, as is proper, because they are matters concerning the House very fundamentally. May I ask him if the decision as to whether we are to accept them or not is being left entirely to Members without any of the normal pressure?

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly, so far as our main proposals are concerned, but I can give no such pledge as to Amendments that may be moved.

Mr. MAXTON: I am very glad to hear that. It makes a tremendous difference. I suppose our party leaderships will be implementing that. I hope it does not give any trouble. I think the House, if the House were only present, would be ready to preserve its liberty. It is all very well to say that these 10 Chairmen who are to be selected will in process of time acquire the qualities and capacities which are at present to be found in the Chairman, in the Deputy-Chairman and in Mr. Speaker. It may be that in process of time they may arrive at it, but at the moment, or in any given Parliament, they have not these qualities. They have not reached that stage of judicial detachment. You may take it that they are partisan people without these special qualities. It may be me; it might be the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). It might be anyone who might be one of these 10 people sitting in the Chair, and there is not the faintest guarantee that, if you give them this power, it is going to be exercised impartially. Without being rude or unkind to Chairmen, I have seen the man who is leading for the Government go and say something in the Chairman's ear, and I have seen the whole procedure changed as the result.
I can imagine myself sitting in the Chair in Committee upstairs, but I cannot see myself as this detached person without any feeling on one side or the other. I am not prepared to give to myself the right of deciding what Amendments I am going to allow to be discussed and what I am not. I have the ability to decide which are in order and which are not. That in itself is a tremendous power. I have often wondered how the Chairman came to his decision. To say to, the Chairman, "When you are in that Chair, take what you like and leave all those that you do not like," is to place a tremendous power in the hands of any Member who only sits here with the same qualifications as the rest of us, and who has persuaded some constituency somewhere to be foolish enough to elect him. I will first make an appeal to the Lord President of the Council and to the Chief Patronage
Secretary to agree that this matter, having been heard to-day, should be withdrawn and presented to us on a subsequent occasion. Failing such an agreement I would urge the Members of the House themselves, having been given a Free Vote on the matter, to see to it that they send it back for further consideration.

5.1 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: No one has yet spoken entirely from the point of view of the private Member except the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). It is not the first time on these matters of Parliamentary Procedure that I have found myself in a large measure of agreement with the hon. Member. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has given the House a great deal of advice, and his experience of the past has been gained through acting in an official capacity either as a Member of the Government or as a Member of the Opposition. The private Member also has his views, and perhaps the House will bear with me for a few minutes while I endeavour to give expression to those views. These proposals are an indication of the deterioration of the practice of Parliament. Looking back over the events of past years one might wonder how we managed to get along without the rigid restriction and coercion of private Members in debate. The procedure has not always been abused when a group or party has been accused of obstruction. Obstruction used with discretion and restraint is very often the only weapon with which a, minority can ensure consideration of the reasonable views which they hold. I have seen Rules modified and made much more workable owing to strained and rigid resistance at the opening stages. The legislation of Parliament would be entirely one-sided if it were divorced from the rights of the minority, and, whatever might be decided to be the policy and intention of the Government of the day, it would in the end destroy not only constitutional government, but the practice of Parliament.
The private Member is not sent here as a mere machine to register votes. He is sent here to give informed and reasoned judgment and to endeavour to obtain decisions from time to time, not
necessarily always in accordance with the views of his party, but for the benefit of the country. Whole classes of legislation must, if it is to be successful, be of a compromising nature. Therefore it is with the greatest regret that these proposals should be made to limit the freedom of the private Member in Committee upstairs. If the Government of the day had a little more patience and a little more tact, they would find that it would be much easier to get their legislation through without adopting powers which their predecessors had not found to be necessary.
With regard to the latter part of these proposals, I look with regret upon the setting aside of the Committee of Selection. As a Member of it I have seen it work for some years. It substantially represents all parties in the House, except the party of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, who has not yet obtained representation, and during the time that I have been a Member of the Committee it has arrived at its decisions unanimously. If objection is raised and opinions are expressed by one party or another, it does not necessarily follow that the majority view is adopted. I have been there as a member of the Opposition and as a supporter of the Government of the day, and we have met all views and arrived at unanimous decisions on all matters. There are ways and means of giving power to change the Chairman from time to time, of removing friction and difficulties which may arise, and of framing new procedure for the conduct of the business of the Committees. The House should be chary of piling duties and responsibilities upon the occupant of the Chair. The duties which the House is able to perform and the responsibilities which it can discharge itself, ought to rest on its own shoulders.
Unless it can be shown that very serious complaint has been made of the appointment of the Chairman of a Committee, the House should be very reluctant to depart from its old practice and existing Standing Orders. I understand that this addition to the proposals made by the Government does not emanate from the Committee on Procedure but from some other source. This is the end of a Session. Many Members are absent,
and we ought to be very careful how we make a change in the absence of a full explanation of all these matters. We look around us and still see our Parliamentary system working fairly well. We see other Parliamentary systems working miserably and sometimes breaking down. Our old method of procedure has been proved by the storms of trials of years past. If we make changes we should be well assured that they are absolutely necessary and are in accordance with our traditions, and not contrary to the practice which has seen us through so many troubles.

5.8 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: As I was a Member of the Committee on Procedure, I think that possibly the House will permit me to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) says that our Parliamentary institutions are working fairly well on the whole, and that therefore we should be very careful as to making any changes in them. The Lord President of the Council, in introducing the Motion that these Rules and changes in Standing Orders should be made, mentioned the fact that the Committee on Procedure upstairs heard a great deal of evidence and came to a unanimous conclusion. It is true that we did hear a great deal of evidence, and the bulk of the evidence was in the direction of new plans of all sorts and of large measures to supersede our present method of Parliamentary Procedure. After hearing at great length all the various expositions of varied views as to chambers which represented trade and industries and various things of that kind, we finally rejected the whole of the suggested changes in our Parliamentary Procedure, and put forward a very humble report containing the very modest changes in Procedure which we propose. From the speeches which have been made so far, and particularly from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who found himself in the strange company of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), both of whom seemed to look upon these matters from identical points of view, very great complaint is made that these proposals—and there is really only objection to one of them—are an undue limitation of the rights of private Members and of their powers, such as they be.
I have served on a good many Committees upstairs, and hon. Members who have been on some of those Committees upon which I have served, will not accuse me of not having taken full opportunity of opposing Measures with which I found myself in disagreement, and which I believed would be deleterious to the public weal if they were passed into law. I have observed from time to time, when there has been strenuous opposition to a Bill, and it has been making a certain amount of progress, that when we have got rid of pet-flaps a page of Amendments after a few sittings, many more pages of Amendments have been put down on the next occasion. The Paper has been covered all over with starred Amendments, looking as if it had suddenly had an attack of the measles. I do not think that that sort of thing is necessary in order to defend the rights of private Members.
As a Member of the Committee I added my name to the unanimous report in favour of the proposal to give the power of selection of Amendments to the Chairmen upstairs. I did so largely because, as the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood) pointed out in his very useful speech, in which he gave generous support to that proposal, it was coupled with the proposal to which he called attention on page 16 of the report, Subsection (7), paragraph (12), in which it is proposed that the sittings of Standing Committees during the sittings of the House should be very strictly limited. It was because I felt that there was an abuse in the procedure of Standing Committees owing to the fact that it had become the common practice to sit a couple of hours in the afternoon at a most critical and important time of the Session, taking away from the House a large body of Members who ought to be here discussing important questions before the House, and I wanted to see that practice stopped, that I considered that the Chairman of the Committee should be given some further power of curtailing unreasonable Debates. That is where I come into opposition with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. He said that the Kangaroo Closure is a much more reasonable method, and I think he went so far as to say that it secures a better examination of the details of a Bill in Committee than the selection of Amend-
ments. I do not agree with that. The Kangaroo Closure deliberately blots out certain parts of a Bill and allows no discussion on them at all. Therefore, I think that the selection of Amendments by the Chairman of the Committee, whether under the present system or under the new system, which I think will be an improved system, makes for the dignity for the proceedings of Committees upstairs. I am convinced that the Chairman in Committee in exercising these rights will do so feeling the full responsibility that rests upon him of seeing that the Bill under discussion shall receive reasonable and complete examination, Clause by Clause and line by line. From the considerable experience that I have had in opposing Bills I am certain that under that system, the reasonable selection of Amendments, there will not be the slightest difficulty in raising Amendments which are good and necessary.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Epping when he says that there are people who think—they are mainly outside, because I do not believe there are many in this House who think it—that the greater the output of legislation the more Parliament is attaining to perfection. I do not want to see an unreasonable output of legislation of a kind which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, might be turned out by the machinery of a manufactory in Chicago. The proposal will be a great improvement in procedure and will leave ample check in the hands of private Members. At the same time it will so operate as to allow hon. Members to attend Debates in the House in the afternoon instead of being kept in Committee upstairs. I do not believe that the proposal will injure the rights of private Members. The principal opposition has been that we are going to deprive the private Member of his rights of criticism. If that were so I would not give my consent to it. I am convinced that reasonable opportunity will still be given to the private Member for the careful examination of Bills if the Chairman has the right to cut out Amendments which are put down simply to obstruct the passage of a Bill, and not to examine it in detail and make Amendments which ought to appear in the text when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
In spite of the argument put forward by hon. Members with whom I am usually in complete agreement, such as the hon. and gallant Member for Burton, I would say that speeches have been delivered under a misapprehension. The proposal put before the House by the Lord President of the Council ought to be passed, and will be an improvement in our procedure. We have been told that the Government are seeking to push this thing through in a breathless ten minutes. That is not so. To-day was allocated specially for the discussion of these Amendments to the Standing Orders which have been on the Order Paper for days. It was made perfectly clear that the Debate on the distressed areas should come up on the day when the Government's proposals were put forward. To-day we were to deal with the question of the Standing Orders, and it is giving a false account of the actual state of affairs to say that the Government are trying to push these Amendments through in ten minutes at the end of a crowded Session. These matters are not matters of first importance, and, therefore, they come at the end of the Session. They are not like a first-class Measure.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: They are of vital importance to the House of Commons and the country.

Sir B. PETO: They are of vital importance and they are being discussed on the Floor of the House, and it is perfectly reasonable that we should arrive at a favourable decision on them.

5.21 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: A free vote brings about some very strange alliances. Certainly, one of the strangest Parliamentary alliances is that between the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on this matter. There is one thing that the right hon. Gentleman for Epping did not notice, and that is that these proposals are only to apply when the House of Commons has given a Second Reading to a Bill, that is to say, when the House has expressed its desire that that, Bill should be discussed and that it should finally come down for further consideration and be passed into law. The real question is, to what extent should that desire of the House be made effective or be obstructed? I was
interested in what the right hon. Member for Epping said about the procedure in Committee upstairs. I have had a good deal of work at different times in Committee upstairs and I do not remember having had the honour there of seeing the right hon. Member. I do remember one Bill which was introduced before the War which the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual brilliance, carried through in the face of the sternest opposition, but I do not remember anything in those years which accounts for his zealous championship of the rights of private Members to-day.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Conscription Act of 1919.

Dr. ADDISON: That was taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. It was taken in Standing Committee.

Dr. ADDISON: The same remark applies to the hon. Member for Bridgeton. It is true that it is possible for a few Members—

Mr. MAXTON: I am always delighted to be put in the same category as the right hon. Member for Epping, but if the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) is saying that I do not know anything about what takes place in Standing Committee in recent times, as I understood he was saying about the right hon. Member for Epping, then he is very badly informed as to the facts. I am frequently in those Committees, much to the annoyance of the others who are there.

Dr. ADDISON: The point is the extent to which a few Members shall be able to set at nought the desire of the House as expressed on Second Reading. Time after time every one of us who has had to take Bills through Standing Committee have been confronted with the possibility, in the absence of this power which it is proposed to confer upon the Chairman, of a few Members keeping a Bill going for days or even weeks, without making any substantial progress. It is fair to assume that the Chairman of a Committee upstairs should be in a position to enable the will of the House as expressed on Second Reading to be given effect to. I remember in the last Parliament of which I was a Member moving a Resolution conferring on the
Chairmen of Committees upstairs these powers. It would mean in the alternative that a special Resolution of the House would be required every time that this power was proposed to be conferred on the Chairman of a Committee. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Epping that the credit of Parliament, notwithstanding what he says, depends upon the efficiency with which Parliament can give effect to what has been declared as the national will, and I suggest that a good deal of the discredit that is said to attach to Parliamentary institutions arises out of the fact that Parliamentary institutions do not function efficiently in giving effect to the popular will. It is a question whether amendment is required to make Parliamentary institutions more efficient in that respect.
This is an improvement which on many occasions in the past I have suggested should be made, that power should be conferred upon the Chairman in Standing Committee, and I was delighted when I saw that the Select Committee had unanimously come to that conclusion. It will certainly make for the efficiency of Parliament, it will add to its credit as an effective instrument and it will in no way curtail the proper opportunity of every Member of the House to bring forward anything which ought to be discussed. It will enable the Chairmen of Committees upstairs to make sure that the will of the House shall not be set at nought by mere dilatory Amendments. All of us have known occasions when that has been done, and I am glad that the Committee has unanimously recommended a, change.

5.28 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I feel considerable difficulty about this Debate. The late Lord Balfour once said to me, in the middle of the Peace Conference, that the trouble about the Peace Conference was that all its business was transacted in the intervals of other business. Here we are attempting to transact a, piece of business, in which the country as a whole takes the utmost interest, in an interval of other business. There is no commoner sentiment in the country than the sentiment that reform of the House of Commons is far more necessary than reform of the House of Lords. It is a subject which excites great attention in the country, and here we are discussing it, in spite of what the hon. Baronet
the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) says, in the intervals of other business. I am one of those importunate young people—if I may still call myself young —who was a nuisance to my hon. Friends by placing before the Select Committee a lot of drastic proposals. I have been concerned with a certain memorandum drawn up by Conservative Members of Parliament on this subject.
I think it is urgent that we should have a drastic reform of Procedure, not a reform which will make the House of Commons something new, but a reform which will restore to it its old power of dealing with great issues. In the face of all my humble attempts, and the attempts of much more distinguished people, to get a real consideration of this question, we find ourselves presented with a number of, may I say, measly proposals. That may not be the fault of the Government, it may be the fault of the Select Committee; but there it is. Am I to vote for these proposals as being the only answer which the Leader of the House can make to the attempts of many people in the House, and an enormous number of people in the country, that this question shall be comprehensively considered? That is on the one hand. On the other hand, I notice that the opposition to these proposals tends to come largely from that section of opinion in the House which is determined to oppose any reform of Procedure. I exclude the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) very nearly comes under that definition. That may be a little too strong, but there is no doubt that the opposition to these proposals is to a considerable extent an opposition to taking any drastic step to make this House a more efficient machine of legislation.
In my judgment, it is not the main function of this House to be an efficient machine for legislation, and that is why I deplore the omission from the proposals of the Joint Select Committee and these proposals, any measures to restore to the House the power of debating great issues on the Floor of the House, quite apart from legislation. Every hon. Member must have been struck by the fact that our Debates are never so fully reported and never awake so much popular interest as when we are debating issues
which may appear to us to be academic. The public want the House to debate questions of principle; they do want the House to absorb itself in interminable discussions in Committee on questions of detail. The question of machinery is of immense importance, not for the purpose of turning out more legislation but for dealing with the kind of legislation which this House ought to be passing. Standing Committee upstairs was intended to be a method of relieving this House and enabling it to make more expeditious decisions on legislation. Conditions, of course, change from Parliament to Parliament, according as to whether parties are evenly balanced or not, but, broadly speaking, we all know that Standing Committee upstairs has become a less efficient method of getting complicated legislation through than Debates on the Floor of the House. It has broken down for the purpose for which it was originally set up, and this House cannot sit down under a breakdown of a piece of its machinery.
When you relate that to the sort of legislation which it seems to me this House ought to pass, the situation becomes more important. Do we sufficiently realise a Minister of the Crown, who finds that a department of the law ought to be reformed, is immediately subjected to the pressure of the Whips and his own permanent officials, that if he reforms that body of legislation comprehensively, sets it out plainly, he will present such an enormous front to Committee debate that the Bill will never get through. That is the reason why you have all this piecemeal legislation by reference and never get a comprehensive reform of departmental law. I shall be much surprised if we are not faced in the next Session by a Housing Bill which, instead of reforming and strengthening the whole body of the law, is merely piecemeal legislation; otherwise it could riot be passed in reasonable time. These proposals of the Government will not solve that problem. They will have to deal with it far more comprehensively. In itself, I think on its merits it is justified. I know it is dangerous, but there is no greater danger than a breakdown of the machinery of this House. Nothing has harmed the prestige of this House more during the last two years than the attempt to deal with complicated
Bills on the Floor of the House by the Closure. It is much better to deal with them upstairs, if you can do so.

Sir W. DAVISON: By the Closure?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, if necessary—I mean by the selection of Amendments by the Chairman, if necessary. For that reason I have made up my mind with great reluctance to vote for these proposals. One must sometimes vote on the merits of a question, but at the same time I would implore the Lord President of the Council—I do riot speak only for myself—to realise that there is a growing feeling among the whole section of the younger Members of the House that this question does need to be far more fundamentally and courageously considered. There has been an intense feeling of disappointment during the whole of this Parliament when these ideas have been floating around that no attempt has been made by those responsible for the business of the House to gather opinion and meet those who feel like this. That feeling is very serious, and worthy of attention, and I implore the Lord President and the Patronage Secretary to realise it, and not to take a vote in favour of these proposals as meaning that we are satisfied, because really we are intensely disappointed with the handling of the question.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. BERNAYS: The right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has said that he is going to vote for the proposals, but it semed to me from his speech that he gave all the reasons he could against them. Up to the present no young Member of the House has spoken, and in speaking as a Liberal I have never felt more acutely than I do this afternoon the gulf there is between the Liberal party and the Socialist party. From the speeches which have come from the Labour benches I gather that they regard Parliament merely as a registration' machine for their own decrees, instead of the great inquest of the nation. I am afraid that I am responsible for another strange coalition in finding myself associated with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and I hope he will not find my support. embarrassing.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not at all.

Mr. BERNAYS: I view those proposals with some alarm. This Parliament has
already witnessed several encroachments on the powers of private Members, small encroachments but perceptible, nevertheless. There has been the appointment of the Imports Advisory Committee, which to some extent has taken from us the initiative on taxation, though we still retain the final decision. There has been the Unemployment Act, which has taken from us to some extent the power of reviewing and having examined the grievances of our constituents. We are losing powers as private Members, and with the loss of these powers we shall inevitably lose something of our power, prestige and authority in the constiuencies and with our constituents. It is not a question of any hon. Member being concerned with his own personal position in his constituency. With the decline in prestige of Members of this House will inevitably go the decline in the prestige of democracy. Where Parliaments abroad have no prestige it is because Members who compose them have no prestige. We have seen Parliament after Parliament abroad collapsing under the hammer blows of force. Why? Because in the majority of cases its Members did not resist the encroachments on their powers by the executive while it was yet time. In the case of the German Reichstag, government by decree came into existence with Dr. Bruning, and was continued by von Papen. Hitlerism came into power long before Hitler himself finally entered the German Chancellory. These Standing Orders are the title deeds of our liberties, and we ought to be most careful in seeing that they are not whittled away in any degree whatever. The Lord President of the Council has said that he hoped there would be unanimity on the question. The Debate has shown that there is no such unanimity, and I hope that the Government will not proceed with them.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: On this occasion I am going to support the Leader of the Government. The other day I supported the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) because I thought he was right. Let me take a case from our experience. When we were in office we took a Measure upstairs dealing with the question of control of trade. The division of parties did not leave us with much in hand unless we had the Liberals with us, and in Standing Committee we were not
quite sure of the Liberals time after time. They left us, and, therefore, we had no chance to get that Bill through Standing Committee. We had to come to the Floor of the House and get permission for the Chairman to exercise greater powers.
I look upon Parliament in this way: We go to the country with certain well-defined plans, our programme. When the country sends a party to the House of Commons it intends that the party shall get its Measures through Parliament. Then the Opposition determine by hook or by crook to defeat the party. The House must be invested with power to allow that party which is in office to get through its Measures. What do these Amendments of Standing Orders do? They give to the Chairmen of Standing Committees the same power as is given to the Chairman in this House. If that proposal is wrong, it is wrong to give the power to the Chairman in this House. When Bills are delegated to a Standing Committee it is for the purpose of getting done work which the House has not time to do. In this House we give to the Chairman of Ways and Means power to select Amendments, as a business-like proposition. Is it wrong to give the same power to the Chairman of the Standing Committee? I do not think it is wrong. I think that we are taking a step in the right direction now in granting these powers.
Some speakers have referred to the failure of the House in the country. We are told that the country is watching this House. So it is. But the electors do not want business to be obstructed. The electors want us to get on with our work and to get it done. If a Government fails to get its Measures through it stands condemned in the country. When we get power from the people there should be nothing to stand in our path and prevent our getting our Measures through. Though I am opposed to the Government on many questions I am supporting them in this proposal. From time to time a Government proposes things that a Member feels he can support, and in this matter of Procedure I feel that I am entitled to give the Government my support. I do not believe a Member ought to vote against a Government on every occasion irrespective of what he believes to be right.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On this matter I am very much distressed because the proposal before us seems to me to be a further extension of the Closure. My memory goes back to 1880, when there was no Closure. After the Reform Bill of 1885 the Irish Members came in definitely as enemies of this country, for the purpose of wrecking the institution of Parliament. The ordinary Opposition and the Government then were more or less united on one subject, and that was to secure the good of the country, though they suggested different ways of setting about it. But the Irish Members came here with a totally different idea, and they brought about the most regrettable introduction of the Closure. It was a great disaster to Parliament that the Closure ever had to be brought in. It took away enormously from the prestige of Parliament. All the glory that Parliament derived in former generations was due to the fact that it was a place of free speech, that there was no Closure. The very word Parliament means a place where men can speak their own minds.
In following the history of Parliament I have regretted to see the gradual growth of the use of the Closure and of the idea that the majority are bound to get their own way and the whole of their own way. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke for the Labour party has indicated that the Socialists ought to be able to get the whole of their own way. That is not the idea of Parliament. The basic idea of Parliament is that people meet together and discuss freely and continuously and finally come to some sort of arrangement which is a compromise and is not exactly the will of any one party. We never had proper Parliaments in Scotland. Parliament is a purely English institution, arising out of the genius of the Englishman for compromise. We fought in Scotland and did not come to settlement by debate. Only the English had the genius to meet and discuss and come to a settlement that did not represent the whole will of anyone. Every part of the Closure which defeats that idea is cutting into the prestige and the honour, the dignity and freedom of Parliament.
After all, we are the only Parliament that survives. The rest of the countries of the world are more or less under some form of dictatorship. If we are to have
this which is in a way a form of dictatorship we are going to injure Parliament. What is the idea? Is it to get more legislation through? It was the great Lord Salisbury, who said "more legislation, more taxation." It means more officials, more of that sacred priesthood of untouchables, the civil servants, who must have jobs found at the expense of hard-working members of the community. We do not want more legislation. There is far too much as it is. It is what America has suffered from. And look at her fate. She has innumerable small Parliaments, and her legislation is contained in more than 500,000 Statutes. The result is that no one knows the law and no one can know it or follow it. The legal decisions are contained in 5,000 volumes. I have little belief in Statute law. Customary law is always the best of all law, because it grows with the nation. It is like your skin, which generally fits you. Statute law is like your clothes, when you depend on your tailor. In Parliament there are too many tailors, with the result that nearly all statutory legislation is a misfit; and just as time goes on and your figure alters and the old clothes do not fit so do statutory enactments. That is why a very large proportion of the time of the House is taken up in undoing the mischief of previous legislation.
Therefore, I say that Parliament should never get through any legislation which any substantial minority was determined it should not get through. The constituencies will deal with that particular and obstructive minority at election times. If they think that it has been a fractious and unreasonable minority its Members will cease to be Members of the House. But now a temporary majority by sending things upstairs is to get its legislation passed. We had an instance of that a short time ago. A Bill was sent up to a Standing Committee and could not get through. It would have been an immensely popular result in the country if it bad finally failed to get through. But the procedure of the House was used in a wrong way, the Bill was brought down to the Floor of the House, and it got through to the great indignation of vast masses of people.
That is what you get if you use such powers as these. We do not want to give
these powers to Committees so that a temporary majority in the House can pass more legislation, for all Governments and all majorities are temporary. A Government is just like a new ship. When a ship is launched and goes to sea it has a clean bottom and moves swiftly, but from the day it takes the water it begins to collect algae, barnacles and other things on its bottom. After a time it is found necessary to put it into dry dock and there it gets its bottom cleaned. That is the way we govern. No sooner do a Government come into power than they seem to begin to go wrong, and they have to be dry-docked, and another Government take their place. All Governments are creatures of the time. Now that we have no strong second Chamber but a mere ghost at the other end of the passage, are we going to give more power to temporary majorities? I hope not. I would like to see the Kangaroo abolished. It would be a more healthy state of affairs if there were no Closure. Do not let us extend it. I ask Members of every party, independently of what their expectations may be, to vote against the proposal. It is no use appealing to the Front Benches. They are all alike. As the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, it is a common illusion of Governments and ex-Members that they are the only people fit to govern. This proposal is going to take freedom of Debate from the vast mass of Members of the House and will add to the powers of Closure, which would be disastrous to Parliament and the country.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I rise to say what has been said by other speakers, and I must leave the House to judge how far they carry out what they have said. Since I occupied the position that I now occupy, on two or three occasions I have had to deal with Motions for taking the time of the House, for putting the Guillotine into operation, and I have always felt considerable difficulty in standing up to oppose them. When I was a Member of the Government we were again and again forced to do these things. I think it is rather cant when I am on this side of the House to oppose what I know very well I would do if I were on the other side. I have done my best or worst in difficult circumstances, and I must leave.
it to the judgment of those who sit in judgment on other people. On this particular issue I have no hesitation whatever in asking my friends to stick to their unanimous decision to support these alterations. We shall not put on any Whips.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You do not need to.

Mr. LANSBURY: Why?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Because you are so united.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should think the right hon. Gentleman would be extremely glad if he sat opposite and had a united party behind him. I do not think it lies in his mouth to take the self-righteous attitude he is taking on these subjects. I happened to have been sitting upstairs when Mr. Speaker Brand closured a Debate on his own initiative and started the series of Amendments to Standing Orders that have taken place since. He took that action because there was no other means of bringing the Debate to an end. You can read the whole story in Morley's "Life of Gladstone." I want to see Parliamentary procedure entirely revised. I believe we were the first Opposition to ask the House to give three days to a Debate on unemployment—purely as a Debate by the whole House. Many Members considered that we did wrong in that, and that it was a waste of time merely to debate an issue. As far as this party is concerned anything which the Government propose which is worthy of support will have our support even though we are in Opposition. We have got away from the old idea which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) thinks we ought to follow, that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose, even if the Measures proposed are Measures which they feel they ought to support.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I tried to make it clear that I thought the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right from his own point of view, 'and from the point of view of the party which he leads, in supporting the proposal.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no motive in supporting the proposal other than the fact that it appeals to my mind as a rational and reasonable proposition.
There is no more danger in giving a Chairman the power proposed here than there is in giving a Chairman power of that kind on a special occasion and by special Resolution of the House. I cannot see any logical difference between the one and the other as far as any possible danger is concerned. I hope that soon the House will be able to settle down to a real discussion on these matters and that they will not end that discussion until they have drastically reformed our Procedure. We very often waste a great deal of time over Amendments which are put down for no other purpose than that of obstruction. I do not think that that practice adds to the dignity of Parliament in any way. For those reasons, I personally support, as I hope my hon. Friends here will support, the proposals now before the House.

6.3 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I rise to speak as a private Member of the House, and I wish, in the first place, to express my agreement with the view of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) that the measures which we are considering this afternoon are inadequate to deal with what, in the opinion of Members in all quarters of the House, amounts to inefficiency in the Parliamentary machine. There is a very strong feeling, widely shared by hon. Members and expressed by nearly everybody who has taken part in this Debate so far, that. we ought not to be discussing this vitally important subject with the feeling that we are preventing the House from proceeding with the discussion of the question which is uppermost in all our minds at the present time, namely, the condition of the distressed areas. The importance of this question is shown by the fact that Members in all parts of the House have taken part in the Debate. We have had no fewer than three speakers from the Front Opposition Bench, including the Leader of the Opposition and the only other Member of the Opposition who has been in a Cabinet. We must all realise, therefore, the importance even of these limited proposals which are before us, but I am sure that behind all the contributions which have been made to this Debate there is a feeling that we ought to have an opportunity of discussing even wider measures of reform.
The last thing I want to do is to take up the time of the House in dealing with any points other than those contained in this Schedule, although there are many interesting cognate questions that could be raised on this occasion. Indeed, I desire to confine myself to one particular issue, but, first, there are two small points which I would like to mention. So important is the main proposal made in this Schedule that the last proposal affecting the method by which a Chairman is to be chosen assumes in our mind a special importance. I do not wish to discuss it now but I associate myself with what has been said on that subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood), and other Members and I hope that the Government will take that point into careful consideration. Another point which I regard as of great importance is that Committees in future, particularly if they are to be given machinery for the more expeditious transaction of their business, ought not to sit while the House is sitting. Members ought to be released from their duties in the House when they are required to sit upon Committees and therefore the sittings of the Committees ought not to be at the same time as the sittings of the House. I ask the Lord President of the Council whether, if he receives our support on these proposed measures, he will give us some indication that that point will be dealt with, because it is one to which Members in all parts of the House attach importance?
Now I come to the central issue of this Debate which is whether or not powers are to be granted under the Standing Orders to Chairmen of Committees to select Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has made a strong appeal for the rejection of that proposal. He says that Parliament must not be regarded as an apparatus for passing Bills.

Mr. CHURCHILL: For merely passing Bills.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: For merely passing Bills. The right hon. Gentleman warned us as to the need for protection against bad legislation and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) also said that legislation was not the only function of Parliament. It is however, a very vital function. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman himself having made
those assertions went on, with engaging and characteristic frankness, to inform the House that of all the Ministers who had introduced huge masses of social legislation he was among the chief, and I think he has a right to be proud—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say that for the purpose of boasting, but in order to show that it is possible under the existing system to carry far-reaching legislation.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am only pointing out that it is a vital function of Parliament to carry these great masses of social legislation, and that the right hon. Gentleman played a great part in that respect before the War. I know of course, that he did not mention the fact as a matter of pride, but I say that he is entitled to be proud of it. We, for our part, are entitled to say that legislation is a vital function of Parliament and that it is essential to free the Parliamentary machine for the more efficient discharge of that vital function. Parliament has to deal with the great causes of discontent among the people. There are, at present, 2,000,000 people out of work in this country with 2,000,000 more people dependent on them. We talk about freedom and about equality of opportunity. What freedom have those people; what opportunity of any sort have they got of living fuller and richer lives? Where have they to go to find remedies for their discontent but to Parliament? It is our boast that the democracy of this country can find remedies for their discontents here in Parliament. Therefore, it is vital that we should make this Parliamentary machine more efficient, and see that the measures are taken which are necessary for that purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping painted a picture of the revolutionary situation which he seemed to fear might be upon us at any moment when a Parliament returned: by a discontented population would put a partisan Speaker in the Chair and would be prepared by any means to carry violently revolutionary measures. Does he think that in those circumstances a Standing Order would be a safeguard? I understand that the right hen. Gentleman in other spheres of policy is very suspicious as to the efficiency of paper safeguards. I venture to think that in a situation such
as he has described the existence of the absence of a Standing Order would be a very small safeguard. We cannot legislate for circumstances of that kind. What we have to legislate for is the ordinary efficient working of Parliament and therefore it seems to me that measures of this kind which will make for greater efficiency ought to be supported.
We know that some of these Standing Committees have spent days, and even weeks, in discussing one line of one Clause of a Bill. That is the kind of thing which brings discredit upon Parliament. I would also draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that at the end of the Parliamentary Session the Bills which are crowded out are not violently controversial measures or revolutionary measures which have a great mass of public support behind them. A Government always makes certain of getting through those measures. The measures sacrificed are humble, often useful, non-controversial Bills which nearly everyone is in favour of but behind, which there is no great force of public opinion. They are sacrificed because there is no time for them—because the machine is inefficient and has been clogged in doing its ordinary duty.
This Schedule if passed will involve no deprivation to private Members of their privileges or their powers. We have learned, whatever the composition of different Parliaments may be, to trust the impartiality of our Chairmen and it is far better for the private Member that the selection of particular Amendments as being useful for discussion and as containing the core of the issues which Opposition groups wish to raise, should be left to an impartial Chairman than that the Kangaroo Closure should be employed, arbitrarily cutting off great chunks of debate including debate on many matters which it would be right and proper to discuss. Therefore, I am not in this matter going to join this motley crew of conspirators against the National Government which I find in the garden of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. In this matter I am going to support not the Government but the findings of a non-party Committee.

Mr. CHURCHILL: An all-party Committee.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: An all-party Committee of private Members. The Chairman of the Committee was the present Secretary for Mines, but he was appointed to the chairmanship of the Committee at a time when he was a backbench Member of the House and all the Members of the Committee were backbench Members of Parliament. We very often say to the Government as has been said to-day, "Why do you not pay more attention to the private Member? Why do you always sacrifice his rights, his privileges and his powers? "It was not this Government but the last Government which appointed this Committee of private Members. They said "What do you want to have done about procedure?" They gave those Members the opportunity of hearing evidence from representatives of every kind of opinion. The Committee studied the subject carefully week after week. That Parliament came to an end before they had finished their consideration of the problem and when the new Parliament assembled the Committee was set up again and continued the careful hearing of evidence and consideration of the problem. Now, after our fellow private Members have gone to all this labour at the invitation of the Government, and have considered it carefully, with all the experience which they possess, and bring before us those carefully considered proposals—I wish the Government, as a matter of fact, had given effect to more of them—I think and hope that the House of Commons will decide to extend their confidence to our fellow Members who served on that Committee and will give their support to these proposals.

6.16 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I view these proposals for the curtailment of the freedom and privileges of Parliament with grave misgivings, and the very eloquent speech which we have just heard from the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) in no way caused me to alter my opinion. When he commenced his speech, its main purport was that Governments went to the country in order to get certain reforms, as they called them, carried, but if that same argument were pursued, it would justify the curtailing of all our Debates and the giving of still greater powers to the Government of the day, in order to thrust through Parliament all the things
they asked a mandate for at the election. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said he was glad to think he did not believe in it being the first duty of an Opposition to oppose.

Mr. LANSBURY: What they agreed with.

Sir W. DAVISON: I say it is their first duty to oppose, not necessarily every word, but to secure that every proposal of the Government of the day is adequately considered. What have we had to-day? We have had speaker after speaker on the Socialist and Liberal benches given the privilege of the Opposition to expose weaknesses on the part of the Government, and every one of them supporting the Government. We had the same state of affairs on a Bill that has been before the House in the last few days. We have had speaker after speaker, called from those benches, as is the custom of the House, and given the opportunity to criticise the proposals of the Government, not criticising, but supporting them, and those few Members who are really criticising the Government have only had a very limited opportunity of so doing. As the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) said, the whole meaning of Parliament is that it should discuss Measures introduced before it, and in the Bill to which I have referred we found, by discussion, flaw after flaw which had been overlooked by the Government and their technical advisers. It is only by giving way here and meeting a point there that we get adequate legislation which will be approved by the people as a whole, and if that be the case with regard to legislation, it is 10 times more necessary with regard to rules affecting our procedure, rules which have grown up with the history of Parliament and which ought not to be altered with any levity.
I have never heard a matter of this importance introduced with less explanation or reason given for it. As has been said, this important matter of the procedure of the House is brought in on the last day of the Session, when many Members have already left to go to their Homes and constituencies. I have heard it said, "Oh, you need not wait until to-morrow, as it is only some procedure Motion," and I say that Members who have not studied this matter carefully
might very well have thought so. It was the duty of the Government to make Members realize the importance of this matter, gravely affecting, as it does, the rights and privileges of Parliament. It is bad enough to have a debate curtailed in the House, with men like Mr. Speaker, in whom everyone has confidence, in the Chair, and men like the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Committees. It is very special mentality and capacity that is fitted for these great responsibilities, and there are only very few men in the House who, in my opinion, are to be trusted with them, men who, over a long period of years, have shown that they command the confidence of all parties. If you give these immense powers to a Chairman of Committees upstairs, there will not be the same belief in the impartiality of the Chair that we have to-day.
We have not yet heard how these Chairmen are to be chosen. Are they to be chosen in proportion to the members of the various parties in the House? The Socialist party is a very small party and it is possible—I am not thinking of any individual Member—that there might not be a person among their small number who, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, or of the Committee of Selection, if they still have it to do, is suited by his training—

Mr. BALDWIN: They will be selected By Mr. Speaker.

Sir W. Davison: Without casting any section of political thought, there might not, in such a small body of Members, be the most suitable persons to select, but in such a case I think there may be a great grievance. They will say there may be a great grievance. They will say there is not a single Socialist Chairman chosen. There are all kinds of objections, in my opinion, to giving these enormous powers to a Chairman upstairs. It is said that we already do it by Resolution of the House, and I agree. If, on a particular Bill, where passions may not be greatly excited, the House, after consideration, gives these powers to a Chairman upstairs, then the House has done it in that instance, but it ought to be in every instance, but it ought to be in every instance by the decision of the House. We have never yet had for these proposals, nor have we been told that the
present procedure has broken down. I do not think it has. I see no sign of its having broken down. It simply means that each Government of the day wants to force through legislation, far more legislation, far more legislation than Parliament is able to deal with.
As to the suggestion that legislation is the least important work of Parliament, I think the present Father of the House would have done well to have given the House his advice, from his long experience of the House, on these proposals. The old Father of the House, the late Mr. T. P. O'Connor, often reminded Members, from his long experience of 30 or 40 years in this House, that the primary function of Parliament was to be the great inquest of the nation, a place where the people of the country could realise that their grievances would be discussed, and discussed from all angles; and that the other great function of Parliament, which is sometimes overlooked, was that any tyranny, any infringement of personal liberty, could be raised in this House within two days at Question Time. That is why I always reject the suggestion that Question Time should be curtailed, for those things are the most important. We should be the inquest of the nation, to redress grievances and to see that the individual and the country are not tyrannised over. It is only because Governments desire to force through far more undigested legislation than Parliament can properly deal with that we have these proposals. We recently had an all-night Sitting, and we were told by the Government that the Amendments were mostly drafting Amendments, but all through those hours, in spite of the fact that our faculties were not at their brightest, although they kept fairly bright, I think, we found flaw after flaw in those Clauses, and a whole lot of things that the Government had never thought of, just by discussion.
I say that this stifling of Debate and saying that out of 20 Amendments we shall only take four, is all wrong. It is a most difficult thing to select Amendments. It is all very well with the great prestige and our great confidence in Mr. Speaker and in the Chairman of Committees, but when it is done upstairs it is different. There will be endless complaints of partiality, and I say that it
is bringing this House into disrepute. I cannot think that any adequate reason has been shown for this great change in our procedure. I do not think it is desirable. We were told by the Lord President that it was in the nature of an experiment. Is it likely that any Government will clip their own wings in the future? Of course they will not. It is an experiment that will be perpetual as long as Governments think so highly of themselves as Governments usually do. It will be a perpetual manacle on the freedom of Parliament, and as we have a free vote on this matter, I beg hon. Members not to commit suicide by placing these manacles in the hands of the Government of the day.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. BEAUMONT: I make no apology for continuing the Debate, and I hope that those hon. Members who rose with me will do so again when I sit down. I think this is a matter of the utmost importance, and that its discussion should not be shortened. I know there are others who want to talk on other subjects, but I have not the least intention of curtailing my remarks to that end. This is a matter worthy of the greatest study, and one of the most satisfactory features of the Debate has been the number of people who have realised its importance and taken part in it. I yield to no one in my interest in and anxiety for the rights of private Members. I have never been accused, I think, of being a slavish unthinking henchman of the Government, and I have also believed that it is most important that this House should safeguard in every possible way the rights of minorities. I have great sympathy with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and others have said about the dangers of innovation, and particularly what the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said about the danger of too much legislation. I do not think that more legislation is needed; I think on the whole it is less.
Notwithstanding all these things, notwithstanding even the speech of the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), I still support these Resolutions, because my experience in Standing Committee has led me to believe that
they are in fact necessary, and, further, that they will not unduly restrict the rights and privileges of the private Member. The Resolutions with which we are dealing are roughly two, because the others, I fancy, will cause no controversy. One is to give to the Chairmen of the Standing Committees power to select Amendments, and the other is to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to set up a Panel of such Chairmen. To deal with the first and more important one first, I have always held that it is the right of any private Member to use any political means in his power to oppose Measures of which he disapproves, and I have acted on that in Standing Committee on many occasions, but my experience has shown me that those powers are excessive and that it is possible under the Rules to-day, with the knowledge of procedure that can be obtained by Members of this House, for two or three Members to stultify the proceedings of a Standing Committee, in a way that was not intended by this House when those Standing Committees were set up, and that in fact some curtailment of the power of obstruction in Standing Committee would be to the benefit of Parliament generally and to the private Members themselves.
It often happens that the proceedings are stultified as a result of obstruction, to cap it by its right name, which for some reason is never attempted in this House, though I do not see why Members should not be proud of it, for it is a very difficult feat and a very difficult thing to do it successfully. One result of obstruction is very often that important concessions which might have been included in a Bill get ruled out, and I think that is eminently undesirable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping suggested that the present power of kangaroo Closure was preferable. I venture with respect, as a comparatively new Member, to differ from him, notwithstanding his great experience and knowledge of these matters. I think that the procedure of the kangaroo Closure is the most vicious and severe that the House can inflict. I pay no attention to the contention that it is more valuable because it is set up by a special Resolution of the House. I think the argument stands condemned by events.
The right hon. Gentleman fears the suggested procedure because of its possible abuse by a revolutionary
majority. How much more easily could a revolutionary majority abuse the kangaroo Closure. If we have a majority in the House which is prepared to misuse its powers in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, the whole of our Parliamentary procedure as we know it at present will come to an end. The great feature of the whole of our procedure and proceedings, and the feature which makes us greatly admired in other countries, is the impartiality of those who occupy the chair in various capacities. I do not for a moment believe that while Parliamentary Government continues in its present form we shall ever need to fear the partiality of the occupants of the Chair. I believe that that standard and tradition of impartiality and fairness will persist, and I would much sooner have Debates curtailed by a power in the hands of a panel of Chairmen than by a power in the hands of the Government of the day.
That brings me to the next and equally important question of the selection of those who are to take the Chair and wield this power. The lion. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) put forward a pertinent query when he asked why the procedure was to be changed. I do not know how much the hon. Member has frequented Standing Committees, but if he has frequented them much he will agree that, while genuine impartiality is an invariable quality of the Chairmen of those Committees, an exhaustive knowledge of Parliamentary procedure is not so invariable. I will quote three instances in my short membership of the House. I have seen a Chairman of a Standing Committee refuse to hear a call for a Division and refuse to allow a discussion on a vital point in a Bill raised by an Amendment, and then discover that he had ruled out the principal objection to the Bill because he had not foreseen the consequences of not allowing that Amendment to be divided upon.
I have seen a Chairman of a Standing Committee of his own volition, when matters were approaching a. deadlock, decide that it was time the two sides had a discussion, and, feeling that a compromise could be achieved, he adjourned the Committee for half-an-hour to that end. I have seen a Chairman of a Standing Committee, when he was tired of the Debate, endeavour to imitate Mr. Speaker Brand and move the Closure of
his own volition although no Motion to that effect had been made; and when it was suggested to him that that was not in consonance with the rules and traditions of Standing Committees, he deliberately asked some Member to move it for him. The system has worked all right in the past because the powers of the minority have been so great that any slight lapse of that kind has not had much effect.
If we are to arm Chairmen with these considerable powers, it is essential not only that they should be the very best men the House can produce, but that they should have such training as the House can give. I hope, if I may venture to express such a desire, that when this Panel is set up the members of it may frequently occupy the Chair of this House and get here the experience which will enable them satisfactorily to wield the great additional powers which they are to be given upstairs. I do not share the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping with regard to what he calls a segregated class, still less do I share the objection of the hon. Member for Banff to the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman being automatically on the Panel. I think it is desirable that the original intention of the House when it set up Standing Committees, that they should be a mirror of the House, could be further carried out by having the Chairmen who take the Chair in the Committee stage of the House also taking it upstairs. While there are only two as at present that is obviously impossible, but if there is to be a panel of those who take the Chair both in the House and upstairs, it will make the connection between this House and the Standing Committees a much more real thing than it is at present, and a very desirable thing.
No one is more keen than I am to ensure that the rights of a majority—which I always regard as an unsatisfactory sort of justification—should not be unduly exercised. I am not one who believes that majorities are always right, but I do think that in the conditions as they exist to-day and in the mass of legislation with which we have to deal—I wish we had not—these reforms will definitely be advantageous to the prestige of Parliament, and will do little or no harm to
that most valuable and necessary part of Parliamentary Procedure, the right of private Members.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. BALDWIN: The discussion has been interesting and, as in all discussions on matters of Procedure, it has aroused considerable interest in the House. I would like, before entering on the few observations I propose to make, to apologise for the absence of the Prime Minister, who has been engaged the whole afternoon in presiding over a very important Committee of the Cabinet, at which I ought to have been also. The point was raised by the acting leader of the Liberal party and alluded to by the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) with regard to Committees sitting while the House is sitting. I agree that that is an objectional practice, but I believe that, if this Amendment to the Standing Orders is passed, it is much less likely to be necessary in future than it has on occasions been necessary in the past. As it is impossible to do anything to-day with regard to it, and as I see very little chance, at any rate in the early part of next Session, of dealing with that problem, I would suggest that we wait, and, if this be approved, see how it works. I have always felt when I have examined these questions as an individual and have tried to make up my mind whether a particular reform should be adopted or not, that I should be very reluctant to interfere with the right of a Committee to do what it thinks fit with regard to its own sittings. Committees are very independent bodies, and when they have decided to sit in that way I know there must be a serious necessity for it. I believe that if this reform, as I regard it, were to take effect, the necessity for that in future would be less.
There is one thing I must just mention, because some stress was laid on it by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and it was alluded to in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). They spoke as though two days were given for the Debate on derelict areas and as if we were taking time out of those days for this discussion. There is not a word of truth in that. Every Member knows that there has been but a short time since we came back before the Prorogation. Out of that time we gave
two full days to the Opposition for the discussion of derelict areas and disarmament, and I think that they felt we had dealt not unfairly with them. Later on, long after we had decided to take this question to-day—and we took it to fulfil a pledge we made at the end of July—we realised that although a whole day was given to discuss derelict areas, the House would be only too glad of an opportunity of prolonging the discussion. We told the Opposition that when this business was over we would gladly surrender the rest of the day, except that, in case of need, we would take the Lords Amendments to the Betting and Lotteries Bill. I am glad to say that there have been no Amendments; therefore that is out of the way. I want to clear our character in regard to that. I do not always guard my character with care, but on that point I am a little delicate.
I want to refer to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said, because when he takes the case in hand he is inexhaustible in bringing forward all the objections that can be brought forward from any corner of the House, and what he omits is hardly worth discussing. I will confine myself to one or two points he raised. Incidentally, I had the pleasure of working with him for many years, and I should like to tell him with what pleasure I see him entering on what he would call his "thirteenth lustrum," or what I would call "sixty next Tuesday." He is in a much more mellow form than I remember him when I first came into the House. There is no form of kangaroo, guillotine, closure or steam-roller that he and his friends did not apply to me, and the House will hardly believe' that when this mellow old man used to come into the House in those days, it had the same effect on the Opposition as if you poked your umbrella into a beehive. I am glad to find him in his old age standing up for the interests of those who suffered under him in those days. The right hon. Gentleman asked what has happened all of a, sudden to make us bring this in. The answer is "nothing."
I ask hon. Members to take note of what has been happening over many years. As the country becomes more democratic the Government have, for that very reason, to interfere more and more in the lives of the people. That is putting very broadly and very simply a ten-
dency which has been growing during the whole of the last generation. The result is that, whether we like it or not, and whatever party be in power, the amount of legislation in this House must be far greater than ever was the case in the old clays. And if it be the case that the reputation of this House is not what it was—which I am not prepared to admit—there is no better fuel for that particular fire than reading of our inability to get our work completed and reading of odd incidents of. obstruction such as sometimes happen—seldom in this House, but not so seldom upstairs. Reports of them do the House harm and do harm to the reputations of Members of this House.
That being the case, it was obviously felt by the Members of the Procedure Committee, and is felt by many Members of this House—I do not say all, but I say many; there are others, I know, who do not take this view, but it is felt—that Procedure upstairs does need some reform, and if we are going to undertake a reform I cannot see what hardship there is in having upstairs the same regulations for business as we have in the Chamber itself. Stress has been laid by two or three Members, and I think properly, on the point that by far the most drastic form of curtailing Debate is the kangaroo Closure. I myself feel that, although the power to exercise it has existed upstairs for some time, the reason it has been so seldom applied is that the Chairmen themselves—I have not consulted the Chairmen on this, I am thinking of what my own feelings as a Chairman would be—are reluctant to apply a, Closure of that kind, which very likely wipes out a whole sheet of pertinent and not obstructive Amendments; whereas by giving the Chairman power to select Amendments we can ensure that there is discussion on subjects which really ought to be discussed.
It may be said, and is said, that there is difficulty in finding men qualified to undertake that work. I do not believe the difficulty is as great as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). I have such faith in responsibility that I am not at all sure that, if he were selected by Mr. Speaker to preside over a Committee, we might not find that he would exercise high justice in that office. I think that among Members of all nationalities in
this House there is a fundamental sanity and desire for justice, and that there are very few men in any representative body of our fellow-countrymen who, if the responsibility were placed upon them of exercising judicial qualities in the Chair, would be found wanting. That is what I believe, and I have every confidence that if the House sanctions this experiment it will be successful.
The point was put to me, and a very fair point too—I think by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—that if the experiment once becomes an Order it will never be changed. I do not think that will necessarily prove to be true in a case like this. It is of such immense importance to the reputation of the House that the functions of the Chair and of the Committees should be successful that if, contrary to all my expectations, it were found that the experiment was not successful, the Government of the day, for its own reputation, would be prepared to say, "This has been an experiment, it has not come up to our expectations, and we will ask the House to abandon it." That is a thing which might well happen; but I do not think the experiment will fail.
There is a great deal more that might be said, and if this were a day on which, merely for the sake of talking, I desired to keep the attention of the House for some time, there were two or three speeches which led to both interesting and useful lines of thought, but I think I have said all I desire to say on the extremely narrow point that has come before us. It will be a change upstairs, and it will be a great change, but it will assimilate the practice to that of this Chamber. I believe the change will justify itself. I am perfectly content that the House should have an entirely free vote, because, as I said at the beginning of my observations, any change in these Orders requires as general an assent as can be gained for it by the Members of the House.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I put to him with regard to the allocation of Bills?

Mr. BALDWIN: As to the allocation of Bills, there is no change. It will be done by Mr. Speaker as before. With regard to the Chairman, he is the selec-
tion of Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. Member asked one other question—and I apologise to him for having omitted to answer—about the Guillotine. I am not suggesting putting down any Motion about that.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood), with which I associate myself, as to who would actually appoint the Chairman of each Standing Committee and allocate the Chairman. We understand it will be Mr. Speaker, but on whose advice will he act in making those appointments?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is in the discretion of Mr. Speaker.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, in line 4, at the end, to insert:
Standing Order No. 1 (2), line 1, after clock,' insert, or at the expiration of half an hour since a Motion for the Adjournment was moved, whichever shall be later.'
Some complaint has been made that all the items in the report of the Procedure Committee have not been brought before the House and that we have not had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on them. I have endeavoured to remedy, to some extent, that omission by putting down this Amendment, which carries out one of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. It was in these words:
Your Committee agree with Lord Winterton"—
One of the most senior Members of this House—
that the Standing Order regulating the interruption of business should he so amended As to provide for a full half-hour's discussion whenever a Member has the opportunity of raising a question on the adjournment previous to half-past eleven at night
This privilege of raising matters of general importance, or of importance to one's constituency, for half-an-hour at the end of the day's proceedings is greatly prized by Members, and it has been very unfortunate that the half-hour has been so often cut down to 20, 15 or 10 minutes, and I am asking that the Government will, if they are asked to do so by all sections of the House, consider again the possibility of adopting this unanimous recommendation of the
Committee. One cannot look behind the secrets of the future, but I understand that it is at any rate possible that the Government may seek to take more of the time of private Members next Session. If there be anything in that view it is an additional reason for adopting this recommendation, and in that way extending the privilege of private Members, rather than taking a little away from them, as is being done in the other proposals which have been brought forward. All I ask my right hon. Friend to do at this time is to be good enough to see what measure of support this particular proposal receives from different quarters of the House, arid if he finds there is a wide expression of opinion in favour of adopting this proposal, or some adaptation of it, to consider bringing forward a proposal on these lines on some future occasion—not now, because I realise that it would be rather difficult to do so.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with all that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has said as to the privilege which hon. Members feel it to be to have this extra half-hour at the end of the day. On many occasions we get an opportunity of bringing forward certain points that were not made quite clear at Question Time. Also, there are many questions on which hon. Members feel they would like to have further discussion, and, though they know there cannot be a Division on the subject, it gives them a chance of airing what they have in their minds and gives the House a better opportunity of understanding the question.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. BALDWIN: I can understand an Amendment of this kind appealing to many hon. Members, but there is another side to the position which I ought to point out. The Standing Orders say that the House shall stand adjourned at half-past eleven. It often happens that an hon. Member gives notice of his intention to raise something on the Adjournment, and he may find that for two or three nights running there are a Closure division and a division on the main Question after eleven o'clock with, possibly, Gas Orders and Electricity
Orders to be taken afterwards, and lie may be left with only five minutes or get no time at all. That, I agree, seems hard. But let us look at the other side. The right exists, of course, to raise questions on the Adjournment—and no one would dream of taking it away—and it is exercised, but not by any means on every night, and I think it would lose something of its power if it were exercised every night. It is exercised on occasions, and only on occasions, and there should be no difficulty, unless a. Member be in a very great hurry to ventilate his subject, in finding a clear evening. I have no figures worked out, but there are many nights when the business closes at eleven and there is a full half-hour left.
Let the House look at the consequences of altering the Rule. Everybody would know that there would be a clear half-hour for him on any evening he chose. It would mean that on very many occasions the House would not rise till 12 o'clock. That in itself may not seem very serious, but let the House remember that the officials and the servants of the House have to remain at their posts until the House rises, and this concession, which quite frankly I do not believe is necessary, because I believe that nine times out of ten a Member can get the period he desires under the present arrangement, could be granted only at a considerable expense to a great number of other people. That last half-hour makes a good deal of difference in the comfort -and facilities of Members and officials, and I very much regret that, unless I have much more proof of the necessity for what the hon. Member has put forward, I could not hold out any promise that we could support that Amendment.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask a question? Suppose you have a Session in which you have one Bill which may be highly contentious. A Government may then be obliged to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule night after night but there may be an occasional night without the suspension of the Rule. Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to safeguard the right of private Members on a night like that to have the extra half hour which they may otherwise never get?

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope profoundly that such a tendency will not arise. I think I can see what my hon. Friend has float-
ing before his mind. So far as it may be in my power I hope to be able to see that there still may be occasions when he and other Members may ventilate any grievances.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider a question of the sort that did arise recently when night after night there was no opportunity for anyone to rise on the Motion for the Adjournment because of the operation of the Guillotine and the time taken by Divisions?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should be quite ready to consider that. But if there were a Guillotine in operation it would depend rather on the time at which the Guillotine fell.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend, in spite of his most agreeable and genial speech, has not responded adequately to the requests made to him from the Liberal benches. He has hardly made an adequate return to the hon. Gentlemen on those benches for the vigour of their support on this occasion. In view of the rhetorical exertions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) on behalf of the Government the Lord President of the Council might have paid a little more attention to the humble and not wholly unreasonable request of his followers. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is carrying this Debate into an atmosphere which it had not otherwise entered. For him to describe these few gentlemen who feel it their duty to make some observations about the curtailment of the rights of private Members as a motley gang of conspirators against the National Government is rather extreme. I really wonder whether the Government ought not to make some special act of concession on account of the Billingsgate that the right hon. Gentleman has been slinging. Considering that he is himself the leader of a party much smaller than those who represent what I may call the traditional Conservative view on this question and considering that he is the leader of a handful of Members nearly all of whom can vote on this question with great impartiality because they are not likely to be troubled with the consequences of it in another Parliament, I think he might have kept within reasonable bounds in
this Debate, especially as most of us said nothing provocative and most of us listened with great pleasure to the eloquent speech and watched with enthusiasm the expansive gestures with which his harangue was adorned. But I am not going to return evil for evil. My right hon. Friend has not repaid good with good, but I will not repay evil with evil.
I am bound to say I think there is something to be said for the proposal that has come from the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment. I was astonished to see that this matter, which undoubtedly will give more latitude to the House to discuss subjects in which it is interested, should actually have received a measure of lukewarm support from the official Opposition. It is most refreshing to see any steps on their part towards discharging the customary functions of an Opposition, and insisting on reasonable opportunities for the raising of topics in Debate. We must remember that the old practice of the House in relation to a Motion for the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance was that the Motion should come on directly at a quarter to four. When I first entered the House that was the invariable rule, and many a great debate have I heard spring up in a flash. [An HON. MEMBER: "Surely not!"] Oh, yes, I am speaking of times long before my hon. Friend was even born. Straight away I have heard the late Mr. John Morley and others raise a point and a debate spring up. There often resulted a dramatic debate in which the whole country was interested, because the things that the House was discussing were the things that the country was thinking about at the moment.
Then it was thought by the Conservative Government of 1900, of which I was not a member, that it was a little hard on Ministers to have to face some of these large and important issues of public policy, connected with the South African War or foreign affairs and so forth, on the spur of the moment across the Floor of the House. Therefore, the system was introduced of holding over the debate until after the dinner hour, until 7.30. That, of course, took all the spring and snap out of these Parliamentary occasions, and that was one of the many steps taken in my lifetime
which have tended to make the Debates of the House less and less a mirror of the thought of the country, and of less and less interest to the public at large. That change which has been enforced prevents these matters being raised and surely a little more latitude might be given, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, at the other end of the day.
There are all sorts of questions which ought to be raised. There is no absolute obligation for Ministers to attend, but there are questions which ought to be raised, and which Members and their constituents wish to raise here at the very first opportunity. As I understand it, all that the hon. Gentleman says is that there shall be always half-an-hour after eleven o'clock and that if there is a Division, or possibly two Divisions, the half-hour shall begin when the Divisions are over. I am glad to have got it right, because I was not sure that I saw quite what the hon. Gentleman wanted. I do not think that this is a very unreasonable request. I think that the Lord President ought to consider it, particularly a request coming like that from a small and ardent band of his supporters who do not often make any requests but who generally do all they can to play the game of the National Government—though they were unhappily sundered from the Government on one particular issue. A misunderstanding arose. It would have been more generous on the part of my right hon. Friend had he been able to meet the hon. Gentleman. We have heard rumours, and I believe it has also been stated in the newspapers, that in the next Session the time of private Members is to be taken by the Government. If that is to be the case much more then is it necessary that this safety valve should be kept open, and that there should be some time or other in the course of the 24 hours when urgent matters affecting a group of Members or a part of the country can be brought forward.
Would it not be possible for the Government to agree to the Amendment providing that it was understood that this was only applicable in any Session when the private time of private Members was taken by the Government? I suggest that as a compromise, because I am most anxious that the unity between the Liberal party and my right hon. Friend here should be restored. I should have
thought that a compromise of that kind was thoroughly in accord with the English spirit, which my right hon. Friend always extols and often exemplifies. If that could be done, I am quite sure it would enable this Debate to terminate in a far more satisfactory temper than that unfortunate lapse from good taste, good manners and good feeling which we have witnessed in the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

7.11 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I wish to acknowledge the support which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has given to this Amendment, and I very much regret that the little verbal flick which I flung out about a motley crew should have given offence to him. I did not think that he was so thin-skinned. On this occasion I do very gratefully welcome the support he has given to this Amendment. I would commend the Amendment very seriously to the consideration of the House and the Government. Let me say at once that it would satisfy those of us who support this Amendment if it were to apply only when the Eleven o'Clock Rule is not suspended; that is to say that if the. Rule is suspended we are not to have a late Sitting then, as nobody would want to keep the servants of the House up for an extra half-hour after midnight. The Patronage Secretary says he does not understand. It is surely quite simple. It very often happens that the Eleven o'Clock Rule is not suspended and, as the Lord President of the Council has said, we very often have two Divisions, one on the Closure and one on the main Question. By that time it is 20 minutes past 11 and there is only ten minutes for a discussion to take place. Even with one Division there may be only a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes available for a discussion, which is a very short time, and I think we should substantially remedy a grievance which is felt by Members in all quarters of the House if we could have this concession made to us when the Eleven o'Clock Rule is not suspended.
If I may venture to do so, I would also speak to the Lord President of the Council from the very short experience I have had as a Minister. It sometimes happens that as a Minister you are told that some Member wishes to raise some subject of Debate, and you have to be
there in attendance yourself, and to have perhaps one or more of your officials in attendance too. It is a very great pity that so much time should be wasted by private Members and Ministers and important officials. The Lord President of the Council has questioned how much difficulty there is on the part of private Members in getting time to raise matters. I can assure him that it is a very real difficulty. There is one Member of this party, the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) who has been trying for 10 days or a fortnight to draw attention to the case of the potato merchants who have been refused licences under the Potato Scheme. This is a subject which is raising great anxiety in all quarters of the House and the hon. Member has been trying for 10 days or a fortnight to draw attention to this subject.

Mr. BALDWIN: I quite see that there may be occasional hardships, but this Amendment, which does make a distinct change in your procedure, is one that I should want to investigate very carefully before I could come to any conclusion about it. I am prepared to consider it, but. I cannot accept it to-day. I will look into it, with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary; we will consider at the beginning of the new Session, when we see what the course of business is going to be, what hardship there is, if any. We will investigate it very carefully in the light of the experience of last year, and I am quite willing to consider whether the difficulty which has been raised can be met, without pledging myself to accept the exact words in which it has been put forward.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the statement which he has made, in view of the fact that this important proposal requires further consideration on the part of the Government and that he is willing to give it further consideration, whether it would not be better, considering the length of time that we have already spent upon this matter and the work which we have already to do, that further considertion of this subject should be postponed. That would give an opportunity to the Government in the new Session to present in entirety their schemes for the reform of Procedure, including some of the pro-
posals put forward by the Noble Lord. I take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman having admitted very candidly and very fairly that this is an open matter which requires further consideration, cannot be dealt with piecemeal and cannot be settled at the present time to ask whether he cannot allow the Debate to be adjourned so that we may get on to the far more grievous issue of the distressed areas, in regard to which so many Members have been waiting for a long time in the House to enter upon Debate?

7.18 p.m.

Mr. BALDWIN: We have been considering the other questions for a long time, and we are quite clear in our minds about them. This question we have not considered, beyond deciding that it was not one of the Recommendations that we should take up. I have not considered it from the point of view that has been presented, and I think it deserves it and am prepared to do that. Regarding the other subjects, our minds are quite clear, and we are prepared to leave them to the House itself for decision when the time comes.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: Since the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to leave these questions to the decision of the House, will he not be prepared to leave the question of whether we should have further time to discuss the subject also to a free vote of the House? A large proportion of Members are not satisfied that the main Question has been fully discussed. I want to get on—I am anxious to get on—to the question of the distressed areas. I have made one intervention on this matter, and I have sat here ever since. I want to ask you, Sir, whether you would accept a Motion for the adjournment of the discussion.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must vote on the Amendment which is now before the House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I gather that if the Amendment be disposed of the Question could be raised.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council to look into the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. MAXTON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken on the main Question.

Mr. MAXTON: I rose to propose the Adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken on the main Question.

Mr. BRACKEN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The Lord President of the Council came down to the House to-day on this rather important matter and said that the Leader of the House was unable to be

present, as he had to attend an important Cabinet Committee. That is treating the House of Commons rather roughly. We ought to have much more time to consider this matter. I hope that the Government can give it to us in order that many other hon. Members may have an opportunity of participating in the Debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall have to put that Question at once.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 178.

Division No. 413.]
AYES.
[7.21 p.m.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Janner, Barnett
Remer, John R.


Bernays, Robert
Knight, Holford
Rickards, George William


Bracken, Brendan
McKeag, William
Sandeman, sir A. N. Stewart


Buchanan, George
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Magnay, Thomas



Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Maitland, Adam
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Maxton, James.
Mr. Churchill and Sir William Davison.


NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Duggan, Hubert John
Leckle, J. A.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dunglass, Lord
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lees-Jones, John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Leonard, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Levy, Thomas


Assheton, Ralph
Elmley, Viscount
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lister, Rt. Hon. sir Philip Cunilffe


Banfield, John William
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Llewellin, Major John J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Beaumont, M. W. (Buck., Aylesbury)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goldie, Noel B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Gower, Sir Robert
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)
Martin, Thomas B.


Burghley, Lord
Grigg, Sir Edward
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Groves, Thomas E.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Carver, Major William H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Milner, Major James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moss, Captain H. J.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Harris, Sir Percy
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Clarke, Frank
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
North, Edward T.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nunn. William


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Connor, Terence James


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hopkinson, Austin
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Parkinson, John Allen


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hornby, Frank
Peake, Osbert


Cove, William G.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pearson, William G.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Cross, R. H.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Daggar, George
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Petherick, M.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Ker, J. Campbell
Ray, Sir William


Davies, Stephen Owen
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Dickie, John P.
Kirkwood, David
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Dobbie, William
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Doran, Edward
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Lawson, John James
Runge, Norah Cecil


Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Selley, Harry R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Sinclair, Mal. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilmot, John


Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Thorne, William James
Withers, Sir John James


Somervell, Sir Donald
Tinker, John Joseph
Womersley, Sir Walter


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Train, John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaka)


Strauss, Edward A.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)



Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Blindell.

Main Question again proposed.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to insert:
Standing Order No. 28, at end, add: (2) Provided always that this Order shall not be deemed to confer the power of selection for the purpose of concluding the consideration of any business within a specified time, unless such specified time is in pursuance of an order of the House.
This Amendment is in the nature of a Proviso that the new Standing Order shall not confer the power on Chairmen of Standing Committees to take the time factor into account too severely. However much I thought our Proviso was justified, the Debate on the other Sections of the Standing Orders makes our Proviso appear much more reasonable than before. It is obvious already, from the result of the Division just taken, that the new Standing Orders will be accepted by the House, and we on these Benches are quite willing that the Chairman of a Standing Committee should have the power to select Amendments. I have a personal reason for speaking on this subject. I do not think that many Members of the House during the past ton years have taken a much more active part in the proceedings of Standing Committees upstairs than I have on certain Bills. Knowing, therefore, what can happen in Standing Committee, I have no hesitation in supporting the proposal that the Chairman of a Standing Committee shall have a similar power of selecting Amendments to that which the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy-Chairman possess on the Floor of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has been taunting us and hon Members below the Gangway with supporting the present Government, but really the issue that we are discussing to-day cannot possibly fall into the category of ordinary partisan politics. I care not what political opinions a Member may hold in the
House of Commons; we are all, I think, desirous of seeing that the machinery of Parliament shall work properly. When the right hon. Gentleman taunts us, as he has on several occasions recently, I begin to wonder what he is up to nowadays. It seems to me that he is having rehearsals for a bigger event; that he is trying to find out during this Session what support he can get for another combat with the Government in the next. At any rate, his army in the last battle was about the smallest of all. One night last week he got as many as 75 to follow him into the Division Lobby, but the number has fallen to-day to about 20 odd. The Government in the next Session of Parliament, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, are obviously safe. But that is not the issue before us.

Mr. BERNAYS: Then why bring it up?

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman put forward something else when he was speaking, and I did not interrupt him. I do not agree with him and others who take the view that Parliament is of no avail. The right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the Tory party have said on more than one occasion to-day that Parliament does not function properly, that things are not going right in Parliament—

Mr. BERNAYS: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to me?

Mr. DAVIES: If the hon. Member will look at his speech to-morrow morning, he will find that he too argued that we should not do what is proposed in these Amendments to the Standing Orders for the sake of Parliament itself. That is what I understood—

Mr. BERNAYS: I did not say that Parliament was of no avail.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. We are very anxious to proceed to the other Debate. I understood
that we were going to have first a general discussion of the proposed Amendments to the Standing Orders. We have now come to the discussion of a particular Amendment, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if what we are now discussing is not merely the particular Amendment which the hon. Member is moving?

Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly called the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in order that he might move his Amendment, but different Members have different methods of approaching their Amendments. I was rather hoping that the hon. Member would come to his Amendment soon.

Mr. DAVIES: I will certainly adhere to the Amendment. If I may say so, his is my first intervention in the Debate, in spite of the fact that I was Chairman of the first Select Committee on Procedure before the hon. Gentleman took over that position in this Parliament. I was therefore a Member of the Committee which made the recommendations we are now considering. The simple point raised in our Amendment is that, when power is given to the Chairman of a Standing Committee to select Amendments, we are a little afraid that he might, quite unawares, maybe, look upon that power as implying that he had to complete the business of the Committee by a given time, and that in selecting Amendments he will allow the factor of time to overwhelm the question of the substance of the Amendments.
If any Chairman of Committee, having received the power to select Amendments, should select Amendments only with a view to finishing the proceedings of the Committee within a given time, it would indeed be fatal, and we seek to provide by our Amendment that, where an Amendment is in order and is one of substance, it should not be subordinated entirely to the question of time. I feel sure I can convince Members of the House of Commons that our proposal is reasonable, because, if these words are not inserted, we are afraid that the time factor may become predominant and not the substance of the Amendments. I have looked up the proceedings when Mr. Asquith proposed the selection of Amendments on the Floor of the House by Mr. Speaker or by the Chairman or
Deputy-Chairman of Committees, in 1909, and in his speeches then he had in mind the very point that we are putting forward now. He said that, although the House of Commons had always to be careful that an Amendment selected should be in order and be one of substance, the time factor should not be given too much significance in the selection of Amendments. This is, of course, a very technical matter, but I hope I have made the point clear.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think I can accept this Amendment, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it is of a highly technical nature, and I think it would be of some use to the House if, perhaps, the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is very much interested in this matter, would give the House some information on it. All that I wish to say is that, subject to further information which might develop, I could not see my way to accepting an Amendment which would distinctly fetter the freedom of action, not only of the Chairman of Ways and Means and of the Deputy-Chairman, but also of Mr. Speaker.

7.40 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am very happy that on this occasion, when an experiment is being tried, the dog on whom it is to be tried is not necessarily to be a dumb animal. I have every sympathy, if I may say so, with what is in the mind of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, though, knowing his humorous ways, I was rather inclined to wonder whether he had not put down the Amendment for the express purpose of trying to draw out the secrets of the Chairman's room as to the particular methods which are adopted in selecting Amendments. While, however, I have every sympathy with the idea at the bottom of the Amendment, I very much hope, and I say so with some confidence, knowing the hon. Members who have put it down, that they will not press it.
I say that for two reasons. The first is that I am perfectly certain that the Amendment would have no practical effect. I would ask the hon. Members whose names are attached to the Amendment to try and imagine an occasion on which the point would arise of the time factor coming into the Chairman's
mind. If the Chairman were a man who would take the time factor into account —I will come to that in a moment—and if he were directed by a Standing Order of this kind not to do so, I am perfectly certain that he would find half a dozen other very good reasons for not selecting the Amendment. That is why I say I think the addition of these words would have no practical effect. I should, however, like to reassure the hon. Member and others by saying that to the best of my own knowledge and belief, and I have taken steps to make pretty sure that I am correct in this, no Chairman or Deputy-Chairman—of course I cannot presume to speak for you, Sir, although the same thing would, I believe, apply to Mr. Speaker—has ever taken the time factor into consideration in the circumstances referred to in this Amendment. It is recognised as one of those things which should not be taken into consideration, unless under some very exceptional circumstances and I can assure the hon. Member that, so far as my Deputy and myself are concerned, that will continue to be the case in the future.
Perhaps I shall not be going outside the bounds of the discussion on this Amendment if I give the hon. Member a little further information as to the kind of way in which this power of selecting Amendments is exercised, because I notice that in the speeches, for instance, of the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), there was apparently a misunderstanding as to the precise position which is adopted by the Chairman of Ways and Means and his Deputy in a matter of this kind. We do not regard ourselves, and never have regarded ourselves as being in a position where it is our duty to help the Government of the day to get through the Measures which they bring before the House—

Sir M. WOOD: I did not suggest it.

Sir D. HERBERT: I apologise to the hon. Member. There was another remark of his to which I will refer in a moment. I want to make it quite clear that the way in which we regard our duty in the matter of selecting Amendments is this, that we should make the machinery of the House of Commons work in such a way that, as far as the
House will allow us to do so, subject to any guillotine Motions or matters of that kind—that we should make the machine work in such a way that every important point of principle raised by an Amendment, and every important, or even unimportant, point of view which is represented in the House, should get a hearing; and that subject to that—not the proposals of the Government—but the proceedings of the House or the Committee should be carried through without undue waste of time.
Therefore, I would put this point to the House, that, if a Chairman is to be entrusted with this very responsible and difficult duty of selecting Amendments, it would be a fatal mistake to hedge his powers about with any kind of directions as to how he should use them. It would only result, in the case of a Chairman who was such a bad Chairman as to require to be kept in order in that way, in his finding another method of carrying out what the Standing Orders directed him not to do. It is a power which could only be exercised satisfactorily by leaving it to the most absolute and uncontrolled discretion of those to whom the power is given, and the House has its remedy, which it has never yet had to use and I hope never will have to use, of coming to the conclusion that the Chairman has exercised his powers so improperly that he must not continue to hold the position which gives him the power to do it.
If I may refer to the hon. Member for Banff, about whose speech I made a mistake, the particular remark that he made —I was glad to hear him say it—was that the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman had now less connection with the Government than they had in earlier days. But I gathered from his speech that he still had an incorrect impression as to what the position is that is taken by the Chairman of Ways and Means with regard to the Government. I should like to give him some information which I think it well that the House should know. The Chairman of Ways and Means is in my experience entirely unconnected with the Government. It is true that he has to be in communication with the Government Whips from time to time in regard to carrying on business, but he is equally at the disposal of and in communication with representatives of the Opposition and any other party in the
House, or indeed any individual Member of the House, and during the time that I have had the honour of holding this office I think it is quite correct to say that I have seen far more of the Opposition Whips or representatives of the Opposition in discussing the business of the House than of the Government. As a matter of fact, it was only two nights ago I had an opportunity for the first time since we came back of shaking hands with the Patronage Secretary and asking him how he had enjoyed his holiday. It was not until this afternoon that I had spoken to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Motion, and I have not yet spoken to the Prime Minister at all, since we came back.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's view at all. If he recalls the letter of resignation by the last Deputy-Speaker, written when the new Government was formed, it gave a totally different interpretation from what the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward now. It clearly bore out the fact that the party had asked him to resign.

Sir D. HERBERT: I do not think that alters what I have said with regard to the conduct of my predecessor while he held that office.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is very important, and it is quite novel to me. I have always understood that the Chairman of Committees was a party appointment. This is an entirely new interpretation.

Sir D. HERBERT: The right hon. Gentleman is right to this extent, that there is this difference between the appointment of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the appointment of Mr. Speaker. The appointment of Mr. Speaker is always traditionally moved by a back bench Member. The Motion for the appointment of an individual Member of the House as Chairman of Ways and Means is always made from the Government Bench. That, I agree, is true. It is a matter of regret to me that that should be so, but it is a, fact. I think I remember the Prime Minister, at the time that he was the first Prime Minister in the Socialist Government, giving expression to a somewhat similar regret. But, notwithstanding that fact, what I have described as the position of the
Chairman of Ways and Means once he gets into office is, I believe, a perfectly true and correct description, and I think it is a correct description of the attitude that was taken by my immediate predecessor up to the time of his resignation. Perhaps I may have gone rather outside the immediate narrow limits of the Amendment. I hope, at any rate, whatever differences of opinion there may be in the House as to what the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means is or ought to be, hon. Members will recognise that any attempt to limit the discretion of the Chairman who is making this selection of Amendments will be unfortunate in its effect.
May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman in moving the Amendment did not disclose quite what it meant? I am not quite sure whether he realised it himself, because he spoke of this direction in regard to considerations of time applying to the Chairman of Standing Committees, but, as the Amendment stands on the Order Paper, it would apply not only to Standing Committees but to the House in Committee and to the House as such and to Mr. Speaker and to the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman as well as to Chairmen of Standing Committees, and therefore I think that perhaps adds strength to the appeal which I make to him not to press it.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to say a word or two on the very authoritative and comprehensive statement that we have just heard. I am sure I speak for Members in all parts of the House when I say that we are deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made that statement. It was very clear and precise. Perhaps, however, I may be permitted to say what was in our mind when we put this Amendment on the Paper. I hope I may completely reassure the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman, if they have entertained the idea that we were in any way reflecting upon their conduct in the Chair in the past, that such is very far indeed from the case. We have the completest confidence in their entire impartiality, but we are in this position. This is naturally very delicate ground on which I have to tread, and, if I say it awkwardly, please put the fault down to
myself and not to the intention that we had in moving the Amendment. We have to keep in our minds quite clearly the point brought out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). We all know that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman have been understood to be Government appointments. They vacate office when the Government vacates office, and, if a different Government follows, it has the right to appoint their successors.

Sir D. HERBERT: That is not strictly correct. They are appointed by the House and for the duration of the Parliament not during the period of office of the Government. It has been the case in the recent past that, where the party complexion of Parliament has altered at a General Election the previous holders of the office have not been re-elected. But their term of office is in no way limited by, or coeval with, or in any way connected with, the term of office of the Government.

Mr. JONES: I cannot, of course, pit my information against that of the right hon. Gentleman. He has obviously a much closer knowledge of the matter than I have. But I must admit that his further information comes as news to me. It sometimes happens that we have on the Order Paper during any given Session a very large number of Amendments in the names of Members in all parts of the House. The Chairman naturally desires to serve the best interests of the House and not the best interests of the Government. It is natural that the Chairman as such, like all other Chairmen, likes to see the business on the agenda gone through that day and the House able to retire at a reasonable hour. But sometimes a very long discussion takes place on the first two or three Amendments, and, consequently, an undue proportion of the time available is taken, and it is natural, therefore, for the Chairman, as such, not thinking of the Government, to feel that the time is rapidly slipping away. He becomes unconsciously aware of the flight of time.
Our point is that, if consumption of time takes place through undue discussion, it is the business of the Government to move the Closure at the appropriate time and, if time is being
consumed unduly, it is the responsibility of the Government that that time has been lost, and not the responsibility of the Chairman or of anyone else. We desire to bring out that simple point, that it is the responsibility of the Government, if undue time is being consumed, to bring the discussion to an end rather than to throw the responsibility unwittingly upon the Chairman or his deputy. That is the whole point that we have in our mind. I hope I have made it without in any way reflecting upon any officer of the House, for such is far from our intention. I hope I have made clear the intention that we had in moving the Amendment. However, we have listened with delight to the lucid explanation given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I sincerely trust that the House will not accept the Motion. I feel very deeply that the House is gradually losing all sense of the proper functions and duties that it is called upon to discharge. It has always been my view that the principal function of the House is not to pass legislation but to be a control and a check on the Government. My right hon. Friend has referred to the great increase in the number of Bills passing through the House year by year, but, if we go back to the immediate post-War period, many of those Bills which have become Acts of Parliament could be well done without, and we should have had a more prosperous Britain. It is due to the increasing facilities for putting legislation upon the Statute Book that we owe a great deal of our troubles and distresses in this country.
I would press on the attention of the House the need carefully to consider this increase in facilities for putting Bills through and passing them into law at such a speed. I find from a rough check which I have made of legislation this year that some 52 public Bills, 53 private Bills and no fewer than 1,156 Orders have had the full force of the Statute. We have arrived at a crazy position in the House of Commons when we think of nothing but passing Bills into law, not discharging what is our true duty, and, indeed,
not having the time to discharge our true duty, of exercising a really sound check upon His Majesty's Ministers and preventing them from being the tools of the Departments and taking Bills which the Departments place into their hands, often without understanding their full purport, and without the House of Commons understanding a quarter of what the Bills contain, especially in a Parliament with such a huge majority under the guise of a National Government. I question whether time after time Members have understood what was in such Bills. Bills are presented and passed into law because they know that by sheer deadweight, with the Whips on, they can put them through without any reasonable consideration being given by this House.
I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter. It is not a matter of any personal conflict or division in party politics, but one which should deeply interest every back bench Member of the House of Commons. Have

we time, first of all, to discharge the primary duty of being in a position to check and control Ministers? Any Bills which emerge under the pressing necessity of governing the country properly we should always find time to pass into law. Tinkering about with everybody's affairs and passing all kinds of Bills and putting them on the Statute Book without any time for mature consideration is likely to be of great danger to the country. I assert definitely that if we had not passed more than one out of every six Bills which have been passed since 1914 we should not have been experiencing such an outcry to-night to discuss the depressed areas. We are creating distress by our Acts of Parliament, and the sooner we restore to this House its proper duty and functions to control its Ministers the sooner we shall find a happy and prosperous Britain.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 24.

Division No. 414.]
AYES.
[8.3 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Milner, Major Jamas


Aske, Sir Robert William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Glyn, Major sir Ralph G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Nunn, William


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
O'Connor, Terence James


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks.W. Riding)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Blindell, James
Grimston, R. V.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Peake, Osbert


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pearson, William G.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harris, Sir Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hasiam, Henry (Horncastle)
Petherick, M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hopkinson, Austin
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hornby, Frank
Ray, Sir William


Carver, Major William H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rea, Walter Russell


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Janner, Barnett
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clarke, Frank
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Selley, Harry R.


Coiville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
John, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cook, Thomas A.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cross, R. H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leckle, J. A.
Strauss, Edward A.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lees-Jones, John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Davies, Maj.Geo.F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Levy, Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lindsay. Noel Ker
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Doran, Edward
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Train, John


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Martin, Thomas B.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilmot, John
Worthington, Dr. John V.
Mr. Molson and Mr. Michael Beaumont.


Withers, Sir John James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)



NOES.


Buchanan, George
McKeag, William
Remer, John R.


Burghley, Lord
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Richards, George William


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Maitland, Adam
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maxton, James
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.



Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Liewellin, Major John J.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Mr. G. Balfour and Mr. Bernays.

Resolved,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Public Business, as set out in the Schedule attached hereto, be approved by this House.

SCHEDULE.

Standing Order No. 14 (4), line 2, after 'Supply,' insert 'and the consideration of the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Estimates.'

Standing Order No. 47 (5), line 11, at the end, insert 'and under Standing Order No. 28 (as to selection of amendments).'

Leave out Standing Order No. 49.

Standing Order No. 74, line 5, after 'expenditure,' insert 'and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the Committee may think fit.'

Standing Order No. 80 (3), line 5, leave out from 'House,' to end of the Standing Order, and insert new paragraph,—
'(4) Mr. Speaker shall nominate, at the commencement of every Session, a Chairmen's Panel of not less than ten Members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means. From this Panel, of whom the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairman shall be ex-officio Members, Mr. Speaker shall appoint the Chairman of each Standing Committee and may change the Chairman so appointed from time to time. The Chairmen's Panel, of whom three shall be a Quorum, shall have Power to report their Resolutions on matters of Procedure relating to Standing Committees from time to time to the House.'

Standing Orders, as amended, to be printed.

Orders of the Day — DEPRESSED AREAS.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th November],
That the Reports of Investigations into Industrial Conditions in certain Depressed Areas, presented to this House on 6th November, be now considered."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Question again proposed.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. NUNN: I wish to start the few remarks which I have to make by adding my thanks to those already given by various hon. Members to the commissioners for their work in reporting upon these areas. There are other hon. Members who want to speak about their own particular areas and, therefore, I shall confine my remarks entirely to the area in which I am most interested, namely, West Cumberland. To the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster I wish to give my most hearty thanks for a very full and extremely sympathetic and very valuable contribution. That he certainly was aided in making his report by the equally valuable report produced by two students of economics of the Manchester University is only too true, but the fact that he had that groundwork to go upon has cleared him from any possible charge of not having gone very fully into the questions affecting the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) who had the good fortune to get into the Debate yesterday was good enough to admit that the problems in my particular area were serious, and, therefore, I will not refer to the dreadful state of unemployment—dreadful in percentage rather than in numbers —but will ask hon. Members, if they feel any doubt about it, to refer to page 10 of the report where they will see the figures set out. For a long time in West Cumberland we have faced the position that our people either have to be found work or must be transferred to other areas, or be maintained as long as they live by the State or by the local authority. I am interested in this question of transference but I would draw the attention of the House to the very striking remarks made by the commissioner who examined the conditions of the area upon the question of transference. On pages
5 and 6 the Chancellor of the Duchy draws attention to our very peculiar conditions. We are in West Cumberland a very isolated community. We are cut off geographically from the rest of the country and as my hon. Friend said we have rather a peculiar temperament, which may be due to the fact that we may claim descent from the Vikings who established themselves there and left their Herdwick sheep behind them, or perhaps it is because we have been rather inbred. That very isolation makes the question of transference much more difficult than perhaps it is in other areas. The commissioner said that transference presents immense difficulties.
Looked at from any point of view one hesitates to recommend transference except as a last resort. When one thinks of people being taken away from our glorious hills and valleys and put into crowded areas—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who originates from this area, will agree with me—where they are only going to add to the difficulties of housing and the big health problems in those crowded areas, one does hesitate to recommend transference. So far as the older people of my areas are concerned I think the question of transference would be extremely difficult. So far as the younger people are concerned it is not so difficult. My own personal experience is that I am constantly being approached by these young lads to get them opportunities for going away to work. I should not like anybody to think that, apart from natural unwillingness to leave their native hills and dales, there is any unwillingness on the part of any of my constituents or anyone in Cumberland, to work. My young people almost pester me with applications for work elsewhere, or for training which might lead to work elsewhere.
There is a minor point which I should like to make in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, and that is, in regard to young people who go to work outside the area. Situated as we are geographically, the nearest places where our young people can get work are, unfortunately, places which are associated in the mind of the Minister of Labour as places where seasonal work is obtainable. I will not press the matter but if the Ministry would give some little relaxation with regard
to the interpretation of what is or what is not seasonable work we might perhaps be able to get more of our people taking an opportunity of getting work in places like Keswick, Blackpool, Southport, and other places which are in the immediate neighbourhood.
Before I come to the main subject with which I wish to deal I should like to say something about the question of training young people. A good deal was said about that last night. For my people nothing could be more important than that they should have opportunities of being trained. We have a people brought up practically to three occupations, two of them the main occupations of the bulk of my people—iron ore mining, coal mining and a simple form of agriculture. None of these occupations fit our young people by tradition for the ordinary occupations of industrial life elsewhere, and it is vitally essential that those young people should be adequately trained. We have encountered a practical difficulty in regard to the junior training centre in Whitehaven. I am justified in making this point because the commissioner who examined the area has also made it in his report, on page 46. The difficulty is that the authorities have long been prepared to open a junior male training centre if they could be assured of a mid-day meal being provided for the young lads. So far that provision has not been made and therefore they refuse to open the centre, quite rightly, I think, because they have had difficulties before. I will not labour the point except to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster drew attention to it in his report.
With regard to agricultural development, I have been interested for a long time in this question, so much so that last year a member of my family spent five or six months conducting a pretty intensive investigation in the county into the possibilities of forms of agricultural development and so forth. I have been so interested in the question that the commissioner's report upon the possibility of agricultural extension for the benefit of people who are not otherwise able to get work has impressed me very much, but I cannot help feeling that the development of smallholdings and small market gardens or anything of that nature cannot be successful unless we
have in our area a general measure of rising prosperity. It is no good a man growing cabbages unless he can sell them. I put that very bluntly, and it is a plain fact. Our area is so isolated that it would be difficult to find opportunities for the sale of our produce outside our area. Therefore, unless the area can become prosperous with its ordinary industries or with imported industries it is not much good, except by way of keeping the men from degenerating, to go in for any large scale smallholdings, much as I should like to see it done. But I am not without hope that we may be able to get the smallholdings going because we shall have developed our main industries.
I come to the two main points of my speech. The first one is the question of coal. North of my area there is coal mining and iron ore mining. In regard to coal, we have, with the new colliery ownership which has been in possession for about a year, one of the finest mines in the Kingdom, with a practically inexhaustible supply of coal. Those who now own the property have spent an enormous sum of money during the last year on purely development purposes. They have a magnificent system of ventilation in a mine which was at one time notorious for its dangers and is associated in the minds of the mining public with some terrible disasters. They have now an almost perfect system of ventilation, and the last piece of work in that respect was done last month. Its roadways—the Parliamentary Secretary will bear me out in what I say, in as much as he visited the place a few months ago—are almost as perfect as they can be in any up-to-date mine. The owners of the mine are prepared to go in for a very extensive system of development of production, but they are being handicapped in maintaining a market which they know they have and which they could maintain if they got proper facilities. They are being handicapped by lack of a proper harbour. I am not going to say much on this point, because I am extremely grateful for the sympathetic way the Minister of Labour referred last night to the question of Whitehaven Harbour.
Although I am not naturally an optimist I am disposed in this respect to find a certain amount of hope spring-
ing eternal, and I hope that the arguments which will be adduced at further inquiries will be such that we shall get the harbour which will enable the colliery to go ahead and give work to our unemployed coal miners in Whitehaven and to some of our unemployed outside Whitehaven. If it is really established it will finish as far as Whitehaven and the immediate district is concerned the question of unemployment. It would be a great achievement for the Government. This question of the harbour, however, does not only affect the colliery. We have good prospects of establishing a new industry in Whitehaven, but it depends on the question of harbour accommodation. If we can get harbour accommodation, I think we shall get the new industry as well, and one can see clearly a degenerating area, a distressed area, becoming a prosperous and happy district. Already hove is springing up in the breasts of Whitehaven people, and it would be a great calamity if those hopes were dashed. I received yesterday a resolution from a joint meeting of the town council and harbour authorities asking me to point out to the Government that they had invested in houses alone in Whitehaven £600,000, and in other town works about £1,000,000. What is required for the harbour is but a small amount with what has been already invested in the town. I am living in the hope of being able to express my gratitude to the Government. I do not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to commit himself, not that he would, in any case, to any statement as to whether or not the harbour is likely to be a possibility. I confine in the soundness of our scheme, and I hope that I shall be able to stand here and on behalf of the people of my area give my cordial thanks to the Government for having re-established us in Whitehaven.
Let me say a few words upon the position of the iron ore industry. West Cumberland is the main source of the production of hematite iron ore. There are three districts which produce this ore: Glamorgan, which produces a considerable amount, and the Forest of Dean, which produces a small amount. These three areas are the only ones in which you get high-class hematite iron ore. It may not be generally known that hematite iron ore is an essential raw material for the highest forms of iron
and steel, so essential that in certain contracts for the Army and Navy, west coast steel is definitely specified. For many years the production of iron ore in our district has been going down. In 1929 it was 1,320,000 tons. It is now about half that amount whereas the present quantity used by the country as a whole is 11,000,000 tons. The possible production in West Cumberland is probably between 1,500,000 tons and 2,000,000 tons. Some two and a half years ago I laid before the Government, before every member of the Government, a plan for the rehabilitation of our iron ore industry, and a little later representatives of the industry came up to London where they were kindly received by the Secretary for Mines. From that time the Secretary for Mines has been working upon plans which may develop the iron ore industry, but we have not got far with the main plan.
So far we have been discussing the removal of certain difficulties which tend to enhance the price of home iron ore as against the price of foreign iron ore, and we have come rather to a deadlock. We have had to concentrate upon a reduction of railway freights. I should like the Government to give more active assistance in this matter. I have not discussed it with the Secretary for Mines and I do not know how he feels about it, but I do think that the Government should give this matter some active attention. Here we have an industry which is of vital importance in the event of war. If war should break out again, heaven forbid, we have no other source from which we can get this iron ore. It is an industry on which the worse hit areas in my district have lived, and it is an industry which concerns one of the vital sources of wealth of the country. The development of this industry would not cost the Government any money, it is merely a matter of policy, and it seems to me that before we begin to encourage other industries by the expenditure of State money we might give closer attention to the possibilities of developing our own national wealth. It is there. This particular area, Cleator Moor, which bulks largely in the employment figures, 2,210 unemployed, a percentage of 52, is sitting upon iron ore which is not worked. Beneath the town hall there are iron ore deposits which are known to be within a few feet of the surface. When these deposits were last
worked the people living close by the town hall could hear the miners working in the mine.
There are reasons why this position exists. One reason is that we are not being encouraged as we should by the iron and steel industry. I must be perfectly plain whatever may happen. When there was a desire on the part of industries in this country to get a proper scientific protective tariff working I received great assistance from the iron and steel people. The iron and steel industry has got its protection and is doing well, but my miners have not really benefited. There has been a little benefit, but very little, in the last few months, but they still walk about the hillsides looking down on the port of Workington where they can see foreign vessels bringing in foreign iron ore. That is a state of affairs which requires the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government. Thankful as I am for other things and allowing, as I do, that the Secretary for Mines has been working hard on the question, I do wish the Government would direct their attention to the matter and in some way, either by the scheme which I had the honour of putting forward some two and a half years ago, or some other scheme, save the industry from going out of existence.
The Commissioner, the Chancellor of the Duchy, on page 16 of his report—this is the only criticism I have to make of him—says he considers that the industry is highly unlikely to afford more employment and that it may even give less. That, of course, is based very largely upon the opinion formed by those two expert economists from Manchester University. But over a year ago I had the temerity to call a county conference in Cumberland, which set up committees to inquire into certain industries and certain possibilities, and one committee was formed to consider the question of the iron ore position. The persons composing that committee were experts in iron ore. Their opinion is by no means an opinion to endorse that of the Manchester University survey, that the iron ore industry is dead. They considered that it is possible to rehabilitate it, and they make certain definite proposals. I do not propose to read the whole of them, but I think that certain points in the committee's report might be of interest. They point out that any increase in the output
of the iron ore mines would help employment in other industries. That is obvious. It would help agriculture for instance. They say that there is no reason to suppose that there is not a possibility of getting the present mines working again or of making future developments if certain difficulties are removed. One of the difficulties they dealt with was the difficulty of royalties, which is referred to by the investigator in my area. I do not agree with the Chancellor of the Duchy in his remarks about the royalties. He says:
The feeling that the royalties should be reduced or redeemed is general.
I know that that is a general opinion, but the general public is not aware of what has been happening. It is now nearly two years since we got the royalty owners together in conference, and they, considering the position of the industry, made a unanimous decision of which my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines is aware, that if they could get a guarantee that the production of the ore mines would be assisted and that the ore would be enabled to go out into other districts of the country, they would reduce their royalties. I am not entitled to state the figure to which they would reduce, but it was a very reasonable figure indeed. There is no difficulty likely to arise in my area about royalties. So I think we can dismiss that. The practical difficulty is the question of railway freights. If we can get the railways to meet us in some way in the local and national interest and reduce the freights so that our iron ore can compete on fair terms with the ore that is being brought into the East Coast of this country, I see no reason why we should not have that industry restarted and going very strongly in the area.
There are one or two other matters which might be taken into account, if the Government would consider them. They are referred to in this very useful report of the iron-ore people. One question is the question of pumping. Most of the mines as they have fallen into disuse have become sumps, from which the water percolates into the few mines that are working. Something in the nature of a central pumping station, if it could be considered, would relieve some mines at any rate of at least 2s. 6d. a ton in cost. I have one mine in my area, the manager of which assured me that it
costs him 2s. 6d. a ton to pump the water out of the mine. If that cost alone could be redeemed it would at once bring our products on to something like competitive terms with the products in other parts of the country. Another suggestion is that a new and more equitable basis of taxation should be devised in regard to the depreciation and amortisation of mining plant and property. I recommend that to the Government for consideration. Another suggestion made by a very sound authority in mining is that the Government should set up at once a geophysical survey of the country. If we want to develop new areas of iron-ore we are up against the difficulty that the necessary surveys and proving have to be done at the cost either of the owner or lessee. In these days is it impossible for them to bear that cost. That is a piece of work which the Government might well take over. It is an obvious piece of work for a Government to do and it should be done. I make that suggestion in all seriousness.

Mr. CHORLTON: An air survey?

Mr. NUNN: I am not sufficiently expert to know whether you can discover what deposits of iron-ore there are by going up in the air, though you might make a big enough hole in the ground if you happened to come down. A geophysical survey could be taken in hand by the Government. Last of all I wish the Government would consider seriously the proposal for establishing a quota in the iron-ore industry, not a quota of imports but a very different type of quota. A 20 per cent. quota of home-produced hematite ore compulsorily used in the manufacture of hematite iron would use all the ore which this country is capable of producing, and I would like to see users of British hematite iron compelled to use that quantity of British ore, which would put our iron-ore miners into work. The only objection to it is that at the present time, the freight rates being high, it makes it competitively impossible, because you get the foreign ore in cheaper. But the real difficulty behind it is the considerable amount of opposition from the steel industry. That industry owns certain mines. It knows that it has a certain requirement for hematite iron-ore. So long as it can corner its supply of that ore sufficiently to supply its own need, it is definitely not interested in
assisting any of the iron-ore mines outside its ring to be developed. That is a plain fact which we know to be the truth.
It is up to the Government now to take in hand some of these questions, which have already been so long discussed in the Ministry of Mines. The matter has been going on now for two years. It is the duty of the Government to consult with the Minister for Mines and to see whether some quicker progress cannot be made to get this industry back into work. After all, if we get the coal mines working, as I hope we shall through a new harbour, and if we get the iron-ore mines working, there will not be a discontented or unemployed person in the whole of West Cumberland. It is a big thing to aim for but it is not impossible of achievement. While I thank the Government very heartily indeed for having established this commission, for having received the report so sympathetically, and in faith for having decided to consider the question of the Whitehaven Harbour, I hope they will not stop there, but will make an attempt to get that other portion of this distressed area going by direct and earnest attention to iron-ore.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. DAGGAR: When it was decided to appoint these four commissioners to conduct investigations into the distressed areas some of us stated that all the facts were already known to the Government. But the appointments were being made chiefly upon the ground that new facts and materials would be collected as a result. As far back as 25th July the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour made this observation:
It is not only a question of the commissioners going out and getting toots. Even if those facts could be collected by somebody else, the important thing is the possibility of seeing the facts through those new eyes and the obtaining of their personal reactions on what is really a problem of persons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1934, col 1835, Vol. 292.]
Be that as it may, to me the greatest justification for the reports is that they have afforded another opportunity of discussing the positions in those areas. I am specially interested in this question because in my division most of the towns are situated in what are considered to be distressed areas. In fact one of the towns could legitimately be described as
not only a depressed but as a derelict area. Sir Wyndham Portal investigated no fewer than 34 areas in South Wales and according to the statment in the report one of the towns in my division contains a percentage of no less than 71.7 of unemployment among men. In another town, Abertillery, the percentage of unemployment among men is 54.7 and in a third town, Crumlin, the percentage is 43.6. In the Blaina area the percentage of men who have had no regular work for five years and over is no less than 21.2. When reference was made in the House to the reports of the surveys of 1932 the Minister of Labour remarked that the facts and figures therein contained were two years old. That is true but the conditions in the depressed areas of South Wales since 1932 have become considerably worse. That is not my opinion only. It is the opinion expressed by no less an authority than Professor H. A. Marquand of University College, Cardiff, who was director of the Board of Trade Industrial Survey of South Wales in 1932. In a statement made to the only Welsh paper that we have in Wales he said:
The publication of the reports of the four commissioners serves chiefly to draw attention to the tragic delay of the Government in dealing with the problem. We find that no new information has been discovered and that almost the whole of their recommendations have been made before. It is notable that Sir Wyndham estimates the surplus of labour to be at least 39,000. In 1931 we estimated the surplus for a much wider area than he has surveyed to be at least 40,000. This is proof that, as I stated in July of this year, the position is now considerably worse than in 1931.
I would not be expected, even if time permitted, to deal with all the matters mentioned in the report, and I do not propose to make exhaustive references to the recommendations, but I wish to refer to a few of the suggested remedies. Before doing so I would direct attention to an observation to be found in Sir Wyndham Portal's report on page 170:
I visited one of the school feeding centres at Abertillery and was much gratified with the appearance of the large number of children who were having dinner at the time of my visit. Two meals (dinner and tea) are supplied daily to children whose parents receive unemployment insurance, transitional payments, or Poor Law relief, and I am informed that the cost per meal works out at about 1¼d.
The House, I am sure, will be surprised to hear that the Board of Education, pre-
sided over by an important Member of this Government, proposes that these children should not continue to receive this 1¼d. meal per day unless a medical certificate is produced to show that they are suffering from malnutrition. To speak of bringing "a sense of dignity into the lives of the adults" in my division and to suggest at the same time that treatment of that kind should be meted out to the children of the unemployed is in my opinion nothing short of sheer political hypocrisy. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted, with the approval of every Member in this House, the following observation made by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty in his report:
Prolonged unemployment is destroying the confidence and self-respect of a large part of the population, their fitness for work is being steadily lost and the anxiety of living always upon a bare minimum without any margin or resources or any hope of improvement is slowly sapping their nervous strength and their powers of resistance.
I ask the Government whether the proposed action of the Board of Education is not designed to sap the nervous strength and powers of resistance of the unemployed man's child in order to save a few 1¼d. meals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was impossible to read that observation to the House without one's emotions being stirred. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will receive the information which I am conveying to the House without some stirrings of emotion. Such an action, I submit, is on the lowest level of inhumanity.
Reference is made by Sir Wyndham Portal to the question of afforestation in the Welsh valleys. He expresses the opinion that afforestation would be unsuitable there because of the smoke fumes and the danger of fire. I submit that wherever schemes of afforestation are initiated there is always the danger of damage by fire. To suggest that it would be impossible to initiate schemes of afforestation in the Welsh valleys because of smoke fumes is absolutely irrelevant because most of the mines that are working to-day have been electrified within the last 10 years. In fact one of the criticisms that we have levelled against coalowners in South Wales is that while contending that the Navy should be confined to the consump-
tion of coal in order to resuscitate, partially at any rate, the mining industry, they themselves, with the coalowners in Great Britain, have reduced the demand for coal by the electrification of their pits to the extent of no less than 9,000,000 tons per annum. To talk about the fumes being detrimental to the growth of trees is, in my opinion, absolutely absurd.
We agree, most of us on these Benches, with the observation of Sir Wyndham Portal that such a scheme would give employment to very few men. He states that 1,000 acres would simply employ 100 men for four months and 60 for a whole year, but I should support such a scheme on the ground that it would improve the intolerable conditions under which our unemployed live, especially those who will never have the opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said, of being able to start a new life somewhere else. I think, as far as the interests of these people are concerned, that no one has put it more effectively or more truthfully than the Minister of Labour himself, when he said:
But I am afraid there is still a class for whom we shall not he able to find work in the place where they live, and whose age and condition make it unfair to expect them to start a new life somewhere else. It is clear that we have first of all to ensure to them a tolerable physical life for the future, but I am not certain that, when we have done that, we have really done all that is expected of us, or that the mere possibility of physical existence for the rest of their lives is all that they are entitled to ask. We have to go beyond that and bring into their lives sonic sense of dignity and utility, some sense of feeling that they are of use to themselves and to the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1934; col. 1831, Vol. 292.]
I favour such a proposal as afforestation, not because it would solve the unemployment problem, but for the reasons I have already given and because the South Wales report points out that of the number of wholly unemployed in the areas covered by the report, no fewer than 29,000 are over the age of 45 years, 13,000 of whom are over 55, few of whom will ever be absorbed in the basic industries of coal, iron, or steel. I shall support the proposal as an ameliorative measure which will tend to improve the area in which these people will be compelled to end their days on this earth. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer said yesterday that he thought the question of rates did not affect the establishment of new industries in these depressed areas, and I am disposed to agree, but there is a phase of this problem of rates, concerning particularly the depressed areas, which was ignored by the right hon. Gentleman, but is referred to in the report of Sir Wyndham Portal, who says, on page 185 of the report:
It will be well to wait until the effect of the new Unemployment Insurance Act (Part II) on this area is ascertained as regards the public assistance rate. If this makes no substantial reduction, the position should be reviewed. I think in these depressed areas they have a rest grievance, as it is not through their fault that the coal industry has become so depressed.
The evidence for that statement is also to be found in the report, and we find that the indebtedness of these areas, in so far as the Goschen loans are concerned, means a charge that represents an annual rate of no less than 9¾d. in the administrative County of Monmouthshire, 5d. in Breconshire, 3½d. in Glamorganshire, and 9d. in Merthyr Tydvil. This charge, with the public assistance rate, is equal to a rate in Merthyr Tydvil of no less than 15s. 7¼d. in the pound, in Glamorganshire 8s. 5d., and 7s. 9d. in Monmouthshire—those rates, in comparison with rates in other counties and boroughs, of 1s. 10d. and even 6d. in the pound. These facts have always been known to the Government, and something should be done to remove this burden.
The hon. Gentleman who preceded me discounted the importance of royalties in the area which he represents, but royalties are of considerable importance in the South Wales coalfields. On innumerable occasions attention has been drawn to this industrial incubus, and it should be removed if the coal industry is to be resuscitated.

Mr. NUNN: I was referring to iron ore.

Mr. DAGGAR: I realise that, but I should be amazed to find that royalties do not handicap the development of the iron-ore to the same extent as they handicap and prevent the resuscitation of the mining industry of this country. For the last three years in Great Britain the royalty owners took from this depressed industry no less than £15,000,000. Last year they took £4,642,000, and in
South Wales last year they took £1,095,800, which means that the average for Great Britain paid in royalties last year was no less than 5.5d. per ton, and in South Wales, where the industry, generally speaking, is more depressed than in any other part of Great Britain, the average payment for royalties was 8.8d. per ton. This difference means that in South Wales last year there was paid £400,000 more in royalties than would have been paid if the charge had been the same as in the other coalfields. The coalowners have always whined and squealed about the payment of rates, and they have fought through their representatives in the House in order to reduce the welfare levy from 1d. to ½d., but there is not an instance where the coalowners in South Wales have ever objected to the payment of 8.8d. per ton in royalties. I do not consider that the acceptance of any or all of the recommendations will seriously affect the situation in South Wales. I think that is admitted in the report itself. The greater part of the areas with which the report deals depends, in the opinion of Sir Wyndham Portal, "substantially on the export of steam coal." He says:
Under the existing conditions it seems to be doubtful whether a substantial recovery in the near future can be anticipated.
After making clear that
coal has been the mainstay of the population and the depression in the coal trade the chief cause of the very large percentage in unemployment figures,
he becomes more definite and makes this statement:
One is bound to face up to the fact that there can be no real prospect of the coal production in South Wales ever being likely to return to anything like its former figure of production.
It is patent to those familiar with the position of this industry that Sir Wyndham refers to the output of coal of 1913, which was the peak year. We have all known for years the observation made by him to be true, and we have made that statement many times from these benches in the Debates on mining. I repeat that there is no hope for South Wales without a revival of the coal industry. The extent of the decline of the industry is even now not fully appreciated. In 1913 we produced 57,000,000 tons of coal. Last year we produced 36,000,000, a difference of 21,000,000 tons. It may be said that 1913 was a peak
year, and I willingly agree, but the output in 1929 was 48,000,000 tons, showing that last year there was a reduction of over 12,000,000 tons in five years. The shipments of coal, which include foreign, coastwise, bunkers, coke, and patent fuel in terms of coal, were 32,000,000 tons in 1929. Last year they were 21,500,000, a reduction in five years of 10,500,000 tons.
As a result not only of a reduction in output but of the improved methods of producing coal, the number of men employed has decreased from 160,972 in 1929 to 129,179 last year—a reduction in five years of no fewer than 31,793. We hear a lot of talk about the need for increasing the purchasing power of our people. The South Wales miners have experienced during the last few years the converse of that. There has been a considerable decrease in their earnings, with the result that there has been a decrease in their purchasing power, and the effect of that in turn has been to aggravate the problem of unemployment. The total wage in 1920 for miners was £65,500,000; last year it was £14,500,000. We hear a good deal about the trade agreements, but it is admitted by the supporters of the Government that South Wales has suffered considerably as a result of them. There is also a decrease in the amount of coal going to the Irish Free State, to which South Wales exported 554,000 tons in 1930, and a little over 233,000 tons last year, a reduction of over 321,000 tons.
Yesterday they were celebrating in Cardiff the opening of Barry Docks. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was at that celebration, and he spoke, in view of the fact that he is interested in a particular company, of the importance of utilising coal for the extraction of oil. At that meeting a statement was made by Mr. Evans, who said that he had authority for stating that as a result of the trade agreements, and largely because of them, Germany and Poland were selling coal to Italy, and that this had robbed the South Wales district of no less than 3,000,000 tons output. All the talk about planning industry leaves most of us on these benches absolutely cold because a Government that cannot compel the investment of foreign capital in these depressed areas by the erection of factories are the last people to talk about the planning of industry. No complete remedy is suggested.
We on these benches will support any satisfactory palliative or ameliorative measures to deal with these areas. We are convinced that £2,000,000 and two Commissioners, with all the imagination of which we heard yesterday, will be of little avail in dealing with the position in the depressed areas.

9.10 p.m.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: A number of references are made in the report of the investigators, and have also been made in speeches during the Debate, to afforestation by the Forestry Commission and to labour training camps on land which the Commission has secured for planting purposes. The Commissioners think it well that a brief statement should be made to the House of the contribution which we think we might make, if we are allowed to do so, to the solution of the problems which we are considering. There is a special reference in the report of Sir Wyndham Portal on South Wales. I say "special" in that he makes a definite recommendation that the Forestry Commission should be requested by the Government to draw up planting schemes for the South Wales area. I will say a word or two about that before coming on to the more general question. We have been endeavouring for years to carry out afforestation in South Wales, and, as my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) knows well—and he is a most valuable colleague on the Forestry Commission—we have more than a dozen planting schemes already initiated in the counties of South Wales, and I wish we could have more.
There is a great deal of land which, in the opinion of our experts, is well suited to afforestation. There is no doubt that it would be of material value to that district, although I do not want that value to be exaggerated in terms of employment. I venture to hope that one of the principal obstacles that we have found to our progress in South Wales may be overcome by the assistance and good will of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) who has just spoken. A great deal of the suitable land in South Wales is unenclosed land. Some of it, no doubt, is definitely common land over which people have legal rights. A great deal more is certainly not common land, and, although there has been an unrestricted habit of
wandering over it, there are, so far as we can ascertain, no rights, but there has been in the past strong local opposition to any form of enclosure for purposes of planting. I am sure that without argument the House will take it from me that the establishment of young plantations without fencing is impossible. I hope a strong local public opinion will assist the Forestry Commission in the efforts that we continue to make to increase planting in South Wales.
To turn from that special problem to the consideration of what contribution we can make in general to the problems with which we are concerned, I want in the first place to make it clear that, although I believe our contribution may, if we are allowed to make it, become a very substantial and progressive one, we are not in a position by the nature of circumstances to make a sudden jump in contribution. It cannot be done, and anything above the normal programme on which we are working to-day will require considerable notice. If we were given all the money we could use we could make only a small increase next year and the year after in the planting programme to which we were reduced as the result of the May Committee's report, because not only has land to be found and acquired but seed has to be collected and nurseries prepared for the sowing of the seed and for the young plants, and it would be three or four years from now before any very large increase in the acreage that we could plant each year would be economically possible. I urge upon the House and the Government to bear this in mind, and I hope that in the future planting programme, which in my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues should be a steadily growing one, until it reaches substantially greater figures than those to which we are confined to-day, we may be allowed to make a start as soon as possible in looking for more land and obtaining seed.
What labour can we absorb supposing we are allowed to expand? Once a plantation has been established—the planting and other early work occupies two or three years—it employs little labour for a few years. Then the employment gradually grows, up to the time when part of it has reached maturity, and then we find that the permanent employment it gives amounts to 25 men per
1,000 acres—it is a little more than that in the Forest of Dean which is our maximum area. So by the time we have 1,000,000 acres of plantations—we hope to have a lot more if we carry out the full programme—all fully established, we may hope to employ not less than 25,000 men. But in the early days there is a strict limit to the number of people for whom work can be found.
I turn now to the Forest Workers' Holdings, a movement which makes another useful contribution but is, again, limited. At present we have established rather more than 1,200 holdings, and it is interesting evidence of their success that while none of the holders had any capital at all, and many were in debt, they now have, on those 1,200 holdings, more than £40,000 worth of livestock of their own. That is a very encouraging thing. If more money were available we could increase materially the number of holdings, but, of course, they must be restricted to the number of people to who we can offer employment. We guarantee to each of our forestry workers a minimum of 150 days' paid employment as well as the facilities of the holding.
Then we are offering facilities to the Minister of Labour, which he was good enough a few days ago to say had been very useful, and which he wanted to extend, for labour training camps. I understand that we are to be asked for further facilities. The additional facilities which we can offer under our present planting programme are much less than what, I understand, he seeks. He has not officially put a figure on his requirements, but figures have come to us, and on our present planting programme I do not think we can offer him much more than half of what he wants. If we are to offer more, and we should like to be in a position to do so, we must be put into a position to acquire more land for future planting, upon which useful work can be done by the occupants of the labour training camps. So far as the Forestry Commissioners are concerned the system of labour training camps is most satisfactory. We like them. They do work which we should not do and could not do with our present resources, but much of which we shall have to do in future for the final development of our plantations.
I would like to sum up, as I began, by saying that we believe we can make a
useful contribution to this problem, but that our contribution cannot be really effective until a considerable lapse of time after we have been given the word "go," and if that contribution is to be of the maximum value it is of the greatest importance, both for its efficiency and its economy, that it should not fluctuate violently, as has the forestry programme in the past. We are just completing our fifteenth year as a Forestry Commission. Twice during that time our programme has been cut to ribbons as a result of the "Geddes axe," as it was called, and the May Committee. After the May Committee's report we had to cut 55 per cent. We do not complain, but it was bad business for the State. After utilising every plant we could—either ourselves or through public authorities who could take the plants without inflicting a heavy blow on the nursery trade—we had, as a result of that economy, to destroy just over 50,000,000 plants. If our programme had allowed us to carry them on they would have been very useful to-day, when we are considering this problem of depressed areas.
Therefore, I hope the Government and the House will give consideration very quickly to future afforestation policy, and lay down a scale to which our successors—because a new Forestry Commission will be appointed by the Crown at the end of this month—will be able to work without fear of sudden cuts and the consequent destruction of plants which, a short time afterwards, we would give our eyes to get. Subject to that consideration, and with due warning, I believe we can help this problem quite materially.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Debate which opened yesterday, whatever its merits or defaults, at least has had the merit of arousing human interest and thought. No one can dismiss lightly any statement made by any Government which affects the lives and well-being of so many people. At the outset I wish to make a comment on the Motion on the Order Paper and our Amendment. I know that it is not proposed to call our Amendment, but I want to make this comment on the Government's method of proceeding with the business. We were told yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Bill would be introduced
embodying many of the details to which he referred in his statement, but to-day the House is asked, by the Motion on the Paper, to accept these reports. If we accept that Motion we, in effect, commit ourselves in advance to the Bill which is to come. The Minister of Labour shakes his head, but I hope to be able to prove it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement yesterday said he proposed to appoint two commissioners, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland, and these commissioners were to be given certain powers. The Chancellor told us that for that purpose a Bill will be introduced asking for a certain sum of money. But in the meantime, he said, a great deal of preparatory work could go on. If we allow this Motion to pass to-day, then when we meet to discuss on Second Reading the Bill to be introduced next Session we shall find that preparations have been going on, and rightly so, from the Government's point of view. The acceptance of the reports to-day means in effect that we have approved the commissioners' reports and given the Government power to go on. The consequence is that when we meet again we shall have to discuss a Bill, it is true, but seeing that much preparatory work will have been accomplished, the House will be in the position of having to decide not whether it approves of certain principles, but whether certain work already accomplished should be set at nought and thrown aside. So I wish to say that the small group which I represent is going to challenge this Motion to-night. I am not sure of the attitude of other parties, but I gather from the Debate that all the other sections of the House, Labour, Liberal and Tory are united on one thing—that the reports should be accepted. They disagree about the principle but they are united in saying that the reports should be accepted.
We do not agree. We think that the acceptance of these reports is open to a. strong and true indictment. What are the reasons against their acceptance? I hope I shall be forgiven for making reference to what has happened in the past. I have been in the House for 12 years. I entered it comparatively young, and I have now had a fair experience. Let me try to recall, for the sake of making
things clear, just what has been done in the past and how successive cures have been held up to us and how hopes have been held out to the people when no hope was ever justified. I go back to the time before I entered Parliament. In those days I read on railway stations, posters which bore pictures of John Clynes and Sir Alan Smith with this heading: "If you only produce more, your problems will be solved." Work hard and produce more—that was what was said then. If it were only given a trial, that was to be the one way out of our difficulties. And men worked hard; their output went up, and up and up, but all this only brought greater poverty to the common people.
Then we come to the Parliament of 1922, which I entered. We made a start with labour transference, and we were told that if we pushed ahead with that policy it might solve the problem. It was tried and failed. We also had the proposals for Empire settlement in 1922. "Emigrate our people," it was said, and it was held up to us that if only we could get the surplus population away to Canada and other Dominions, all would be well. That policy was tried and failed. Then we came to the 1924 Labour Government, and we were told that if we worked diligently in certain directions much could be done for the placing of people in employment. I remember the then Minister of Labour saying that the great thing was labour organisation by the Ministry of Labour—finding work and placing men. That failed. Then we went on to the Tory Government whose great cry was "Rates." If we could only level rates, they said, things would be well with industry. That Government brought in its de-rating proposals for the relief of industry, but still the figures of unemployment went up.
Then there succeeded another Labour Government with the desire and the will to solve this problem. With all the capacity that they possessed what did they do? They certainly took more ambitious steps than are proposed now. They did not appoint two outside commissioners, two unpaid men from outside their ranks, to deal with the problem. They decided to set aside for this work a Member of the Cabinet, one who was right in the inner circle, and one of their most skilled men. We sometimes
sneer at the Dominions Secretary, but he had a reputation for capacity as a skilled negotiator. He had built up almost the strongest trade union in Great Britain and made it powerful. He had been chairman of the Trades Union Congress, and had held other official posts. It was said: "This is the man for us, a man with Cabinet rank and with no other job." Not only that, but he was given the assistance of one who was then looked upon as one of the brilliant men of the Labour party, Sir Oswald Mosley. Nor did it end there, for the Under-Secretary for Scotland of that time, Mr. Johnston, was also deputed to assist. He was looked upon as one of the most skilful politicians in the party and he was always advocating in his paper large schemes for the solution of unemployment, schemes such as the construction of canals and roads, coal carbonisation, and afforestation. And the steps taken did not end there. The Prime Minister appointed a brains' trust. This was the Economic Council, a group of people chosen by the Prime Minister to assist the responsible Ministers. There is one thing, too, that can be said for Viscount Snowden when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He may have grudged us money in some directions, but no money was grudged to that Department. At the end, disillusion. At the end, nothing. At the end, the hope that was held out become hope dismayed, and the poor poorer than before.
Then we came to this Government with the same Prime Minister. If we could only exercise economy; if we could only use our talents and not waste, we could solve the problem. We have saved and saved. It is true that the problem now is less than some time ago. For that, the Government claim credit, as any Government would do. It is no good people here asking whether it was this Government which accomplished that improvement. I do not know whether it was or was not; I only know that it is the same Prime Minister. I am simple. All that I know is that the Labour party, were they in power, would claim that they had done it; all parties would claim it. Giving the Government credit that they have done it, the figure remains colossal. It represents human tragedy.
They send out four Commissioners to England, Wales and Scotland. They
send to the Tyne and to Cumberland. It was a contemptible thing to do. They are not the only places. Middlesbrough is outside the pale. Has any hon. Member ever walked through the streets of that town? It is as bad as mine. Middlesbrough has its poverty. Who has not walked through Wigan and has not come away with the feeling of the terrible tragedy in its life? Who has not gone through Burnley or to Dundee? Who has not stood, as I stood the other week, outside the Employment Exchange at Dundee and seen the poverty there? Go even to Aberdeen—a nice town. In Aberdeen they still have a little of what one might term respectability that we have not in Gorbals, but it is poverty with a collar and tie. Those places are told: "You are not playing the game. Your ball is outside the touch. You cannot come in; it is only the others. You are not in the match. The only people we can do anything for are Cumberland, and the others."
Then the four reports come. The tragedy of their reports is that in every line, sentence and comma, it has all been said in this House time after time. I have seen Tories, decent, kindly fellows whose human feelings made them say the same things. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made his reputation here eight years ago on one of the things they shout about, and nobody paid attention to it—plots of land. He spoke about carbonisation. I have heard that ever since I entered the House. Everything has been said, but not by Sir Wyndham Portal or by anybody who was a sort of Douglas Fairbanks; they were said by the ordinary man—not by God-appointed people. They were ordinary folk, and nobody paid attention to them. You must send four men to find out what we already knew, and even that was not done too well. The Scottish Report—look at it; a barren, contemptible report, not even decently written. It is empty of thought. This is a man who has produced a report of which a schoolboy of 15 would almost be ashamed. This man is sent up to solve the problem of Alexandria, with its dyeworks adrift; to solve the problem of Gorbals with its intense poverty. Nobody knows him. Who in Scotland knows Sir Arthur Rose? It is a shame, a sham and an outrage. Send the Under-Secretary for Scotland if you
like; he has ability, capacity and courage, but do not subject the folk to a man who has no place in the sun in this problem.
They are to get £2,000,000. On what have they to spend it? First let me take what they have not to spend it on. They have not to spend it on land drainage. Sewage is the job of the local authorities, land of the Ministry of Agriculture, roads of the Ministry of Transport, housing of the local authority and afforestation of the board represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) who last addressed the House. They are to do nothing in those directions because all that is controlled by the Departments. What is left? They have to beautify the districts with the £2,000,000. A sum of £2,000,000 to beautify Glasgow, to beautify Wales, or the Clyde, or Cumberland. Why beautify the places? I know Newcastle, and hon. Members here know Newcastle. Nobody will tell me that anybody stops building a factory because parts of Newcastle are not beautiful. I was out at Gosforth the other day, a beautiful part and as fine a place as anybody wants to go to; it needs no money to beautify that, because its beauty is there.
It is not beauty that is wrong. There may be too much. Never were there finer banks in the world than those of the Clyde. Beautify slag heaps: do we never think that we should spend money, not in beautifying slag heaps, but in beautifying men, women and children? The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) spoke about the feeding of the children. I have felt worse than he about it. I admire the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his capacity and skill, and I often think that he has a fine human kindness that we often do not understand. What are the facts? We are out to beautify things and to improve the beauty of places in order to find work. How do you treat the human beings? The case of an unemployed man who was five years out of work was quoted in a speech; he needs our help and sympathy. How have they treated that man? To-day he cannot get his health insurance money. Let his wife have a bairn, and she cannot get maternity benefit. Let that man be out of work for three years, and he cannot get a doctor. Nay, if he does not sign at the bureau—if he goes out hopeless, and does not sign—he gets no pension,
and next year, if he dies, and if there is no new law, there will be nothing for the widow and the children. You talk about beautifying the country, but the human beings are left to die. Is not that a terrible state of affairs? If I wanted to start a factory I would not look at the roads; I would look at the men and women. That is where you want to start.
The Minister of Labour, at the close of his speech last night, made an appeal. I do not want to score a point at all, but it seemed to me that he lost his nerve. He made an appeal to Members here not to go out into the country and slang these proposals. That was not the way the government spoke three years ago. Elections have come, and I think that next time, whether we like it or not, the next Government will be a Labour Government. No force can keep them back. An appeal has been made to us not to go out and slang these proposals. I make this offer. I will not slang. I will let the Minister try his petty commissioners; I will give them all the trial that he needs. I will give them, not four months, but years. I will let them make mistakes, because they are human. I will allow them everything. But I will ask him in the meantime, while he is planning, while he is thinking, while he is developing, while he is working out his scheme, at least to look after the sick and infirm, the young and the old, and the men and women who are unemployed. Surely, in this rich country, where wealth abounds, where there are unlimited quantities of goods to be disposed of, it is at least possible in the meantime, while these schemes are being worked out, that the poverty and degradation that we see and know can be swept aside, and that in the meantime no child should starve, no person should be underfed, but that this nation should give them the human material necessities for human happiness and human joy.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: I understand that the discussion to-night is upon the commissioners' reports and upon the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House yesterday, and I will confine my remarks to the commissioner's report with respect to the Tyneside area. First of all, I must congratulate the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on his report, and on his insight and foresight. I am not going to read, as many have done to-night,
huge extracts from the report-, but would like to draw the attention of the Minister to one governing factor in the situation on Tyneside which the commissioner seems to me to have overlooked, and which has had a most vicious effect on the industries on Tyneside. I refer to the question of rationalisation. First of all, I should like to give Professor Gregory's definition of the term "rationalisation":
It means the merging of small units into a. large combine, with the object of increasing profits, eliminating competition, and reducing manufacturing costs.
In other words, the holy trinity who are in charge of industry to-day seem to me to be the financier, the chemist and the works accountant; and there is no sentiment about them at all as they function. Frequently they deal quite ruthlessly with industry, and on Tyneside the effects of rationalisation have, as I have indicated, been very bad indeed. I have some figures which have been most carefully prepared, and which I will give to the Minister to look over, respecting the chemical trade and the glass trade, but to-night I will refer only to the vicious effects of rationalisation on shipbuilding. Shipbuilders Securities, Limited, have bought out and closed down ten shipyards on Tyneside on the ground of redundancy. I am not going to say anything about that policy if it is fairly applied, nor am I going to say anything about what the company have done in respect of the neighbouring ports of Sunderland and Scotland. Others will speak on that subject. But, as I have said, they have bought out and closed down 10 shipyards on Tyneside, and I want to ask the Government why this action of Shipbuilders Securities, Limited, impinges so harshly upon Tyneside Why are the dice loaded in favour of the Clyde, and Barrow, and Sheffield? Is it because of the personnel of the steel ring? I am not going to mention names when the persons concerned are not here to defend themselves. At a dinner two or three weeks ago I did tackle Sir Charles Craven, but I did it deliberately, when he was there, and after warning him that I was going to make him "go through the hoop." I ask the Government, and I ask hon. Members, who know the facts as well as I do, and possibly better, whether the steel ring—Lord Aberconway, Mr. Lithgow and others—who are deliberately in
favour of the Clyde, and who have John Brown of Sheffield closely akin to John Brown of Clydebank—

Mr. MARTIN: Will the hon. Member give the answer of Sir Charles Craven on the occasion to which he has referred?

Mr. MAGNAY: Sir Charles Craven was there himself, and does not need any assistance from my hon. Friend. He can take care of himself. I repeat my question: Is it because the personnel of the steel ring load the dice in favour of the Clyde? Statistics were given yesterday by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske), and we know from the Board of Trade's statistics how the trend of shipbuilding has gone from the Tyne to the Clyde; and I want to know whether the personnel of the steel ring, and the presence there of people interested in other places, have had anything to do with it? At any rate, we feel on Tyneside that we ought to have something to do with it, and that we ought to ask these questions and, if possible, get the answers to them. In my opinion it is a grave question of public policy that is involved here, and we ought to have an independent industrial survey board or committee appointed by the Government to control the activity of these combines. It was bad enough in the days of Free Trade, but in these days of Protection it may become a great public menace or even a calamity. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Pearson) told us yesterday how viciously this impinged upon Jarrow. Municipalities are seriously affected by the depreciation of rateable values, and even the destruction of values and property. Shipyards are closed down for 40 years.
I want to make the House quite easy in their minds in case they think that National Securities, Limited, is doing this in the public interest that they will be quite financially sound in doing this. One per cent, in a normal year will mean £263,000, and the creation of a monopoly to shipbuilding may destroy our competitive power for foreign orders. I object with all the vehemence at my disposal to any combine deciding what is the national capacity for shipbuilding. We know that in 1920 and 1921 these experts—these cosmopolitan financiers—were grossly in error. They are the same
breed that nearly ruined us in 1931. Finance knows no colour bar and has no conscience in many respects. They do not care at all about the Tyne. It does not concern them. The Tyne harbour might as well silt up and be as unsightly and useless as Jarrow Thake. I have figures from the Employment Exchange at Newcastle to show the difference that has been made by the alteration that has taken place in shipbuilding on Tyneside in the last few years. Insured persons in shipbuilding and ship repairing at the end of June last year were 24,940, in general engineering, 13,670, and in marine engineering, 9,100, a total of 47,770. The numbers of such trades unemployed at the end of September this year are respectively, 14,379, 4,503 and 3,587, a total of 22,469, or over 47 per cent. unemployed insured workers in these trades over 16 and under 64 years of age. That shows in the shipbuilding trade alone how difficult things have been made on Tyneside, not altogther but mainly by this policy of rationalisation, which is another way of spelling unemployment. At the same time I urge the appointment of a public safety board by the Government to be independent of all interested parties.
I congratulate the commissioner on his report, and I should like to express my thanks to the Government for their quick action. No one really expected that a long-range policy would be implemented at once. It was unthinkable. But we note the recommendations of the commissioners, and I shall expect them to be implemented in due course. I see it as a door of opportunity newly opened which no Government hereafter will be able to shut. The commissioners are the pivot on which the door swings. I wish the commissioner God speed and I promise him, as far as the Northern group of Members is concerned, the unstinted support of everyone of us. I trust he will make the fullest use of us as and when Ire chooses. If I might give any advice at all, I would say that he ought to be bold and be bold again. Already some well-informed critics have said to me that it is impossible for any commissioner, however able and energetic, to overcome the opposition of the various Government Departments. One said to me that the only man he ever knew in his long experience of the House who could overcome the Departments was the right hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and he only did it because he threatened that if he did not get munitions as he wanted them he would explain things through the public Press. There is an alternative to that. The Government are on their trial and there is a general election not far away. I think that will be a spur, if nothing else will, to get a move on. I should like this commissioner for the North, at any rate, to make history by re-making the distressed areas. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "There is £2,000,000 to be getting on with. Show what you are worth, and there will be more where that came from." That is what his speech boiled down to. The co-operation of local authorities is assured and, being what he is, I expect the commissioner for the Northern area to bring forth concrete proposals, and I at any rate, hope that he will reinforce the spirit and morale of our people.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I should like to take the opportunity of correcting what seemed to me to be the implication of the very able speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He seemed to imply that in discussing this Motion we were accepting the reports. In fact, all that the Motion says is that the reports should be considered.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is a matter of opinion. My own view is that it is a Government Motion, and if you want to disclaim it entirely there is only way way to do it, and that is to vote against it.

Mr. LAWSON: All I can say is that we are not likely to vote for the acceptance of these reports, in view of some of the opinions and recommendations in the Durham report, despite the very able way in which it is written. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out yesterday that when these commissioners were appointed it was said on these benches that it was almost a waste of time. In truth, that view was not only held on these benches. The view that practically all the information that was necessary was now in the hands of the Government was held on the opposite side as well, and was widely held and expressed in the country. We knew when the commission was appointed that it would amount almost
to a year before anything useful were done, yet we were so pleased that at last the Government were moving in the matter that we withheld criticism. We gave all the help we could as far as the inquiries in the various areas were concerned. Those who made the investigations will agree that it was due to that co-operation that they met with a warm spirit and considerable help in the form of suggestions.
In the light of that fact the reference of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday to the absence of men of light and leading in those areas was rather ungracious. He seemed to fall into the trap into which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty fell when he was writing his report. Both the Civil Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer fell victims to statements which are usually made in areas wherever Labour has a majority. My Welsh friends know this story just as well as I know it in my own erea. There never were any men of light and leading in the industrial area of Durham in my time. What really took place was that those who in the main owned the collieries put their satellites upon the local councils in order to stop laws which were on the Statute Book from being operated for the purposes of housing. I raise this matter because I want the Government and the Commissioners to take it very seriously. If there is not a different attitude upon it, there will be no co-operation in the areas. They can make their way about as well as they can, but all the efforts of the Government will lead to disaster if we are to be faced by a sort of superiority complex.
The facts are these. When Labour came into power in all the councils in Durham—it is the same in other great industrial areas—there were thousands of houses in areas where there were swamps rather than streets, and privies which were a disgrace to civilisation. Only the other day I took two independent men who did not share my views to a street in one of our villages and tried to explain to them what the old privies had been like when people had to walk across the road, and when there were two or three families to one privy. I was trying to explain to them what had been done. In that village there is now a proper place for each family in the yard. There is water, and all the conveniences. Sud-
denly we came across one of those old places at the end of the street, and they were amazed at the kind of place the people had had to use. We had the problem to meet. There was a bankrupt water supply in the county, and we had to meet these problems in order to give "hands and feet," so to speak, to the law. Therefore it does not lie in the mouth of those associated, even with the party that was responsible, to accuse us of failing to carry out laws for the administration of which the Government are responsible. It is very important that this matter should be understood. There is a well-known disease called inferiority complex, but it expresses itself sometimes in the form of superiority complex, and sometimes we call it snobbery. I am sure that many of those who have spoken in this way would not be guilty of snobbery. That is the last thing you would expect from them in this House, but the fact is there, and there have been evidences of it. I hope that those who have co-operated with the Government commissioners will be met in a proper spirit.
I wish I had time to put on record what the commissioners have said about the people in these areas. Many of their statements have been quoted, but it seems to be taken for granted that because statements are contained in a Blue Book most people are aware of them. It is a pity that they cannot be placed in the official record. There is a quotation of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the people of Cumberland. It is true, and I say it with pride because I was born in that part of the world. I have always said that any education I received was almost worthless compared with the education that one received when living in the midst of the hills and beautiful natural surroundings. A tribute has been paid to the Welsh people, a very fine tribute. The commissioner spoke of how he was met by people of excellent intelligence. Tribute was paid to the Dunham people because of the remarkable patience and courage with which they are facing the present situation, and to the Scottish people for their tremendous resistance in tie face of a very difficult situation. These are the people to whom these reports refer. They are unemployed but they are people of the finest calibre.
The reports do not give us anything new as far as information is concerned. They confirm evidence accumulated by the Transference Board as far back as 1927. There was a survey in 1932, and there have been articles in the Press and many speeches in this House. If there be any difference in these reports it is simply that the passage of time has enabled them to underline the progressive deterioration of the industrialists of those areas. That is all that has been done. For years in those areas hope has been held out that somewhere there was a silver lining and that trade would turn and change the face of things. At last we have had it laid down in unmistakable terms that, unless the situation be faced in a consultative frame of mind by the Government of the day, that deterioration will move irresistibly on its grim and gloomy way.
The evolution of this problem is remarkable. When the late Mr. Trevelyan Thomson used to speak from the bench below the Gangway it was called the necessitous areas problem, and afterwards it became the distressed areas problem. Now it is described as a depressed areas problem. It is clear that each one of these reports seeks to prove that these areas are not exactly derelict, but they admit that in every area there are places which are absolutely derelict. What do they prove? They make it quite clear that it is not a question of areas. There is nothing particular in the people themselves that make them responsible for this position. There is nothing in the social organisation that is responsible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went so far as to say that it was not a question of rates. I think he tried to put the point that although people blamed the local authorities for the rates it was not the rates that were responsible. It is some-think that is typical of these areas that is responsible, and that is the industries, in the areas.
I cannot understand why the Government when they set up their commissioners omitted Lancashire. The cotton industry is in a very parlous condition. When the surveys were made they not only took in Lancashire but they made an express investigation into Liverpool, because of the state of shipping. Cotton, shipbuilding, coal, heavy engineering, iron and steel in most parts of the country are all depressed. There are
certain bright exceptions, but these are the five industries that are concerned. Why the Government did not take in Lancashire and Liverpool for investigation by commissioners I cannot understand. Liverpool has the highest poor rate in the country. Liverpool has 1,059 per 10,000 of its population on public assistance and even Durham has only 735 per 10,000.
It is a question of these industries. It is clear from the reports that the industrial depression has not only gone on but it is going on now, and no man can tell when we shall see the end of the process. They talk about mechanisation, appliances and inventions of all kinds and that the causes are international, but if there is one thing in the reports that is clear it is that the process of deterioration has not finished and that the industries, stage by stage, have not only turned off great masses of people but that they will continue to do so in future years. I do not wish to blacken the picture too much, but the facts are on record, and I only wish there had been time to produce the very striking statements that the commissioners make on this part of the question.
In what frame of mind do the Government face a situation of that kind, after nine months of investigation? I had the temerity at the end of last year to say that if the Government did not take steps before the House rose at the end of last Session it would mean that we should not get any work done so far as assisting the people were concerned, until next spring. Many people thought that I was exaggerating the situation for party purposes, but the fact remains that there is very little prospect after this long period of investigation of getting anything done before the spring.

Mr. BATEY: There will be nothing done then.

Mr. LAWSON: I am going on to deal with whether or not there will be anything done. What do the Government propose to meet the problem? They propose to give us commissioners; that was the essence of the Chancellor's statement. I have never known an area so depressed as the House of Commons last night when the Chancellor had finished, and if the faces of hon. Members opposite had continued to lengthen as the right
hon. Gentleman went on promising the good things I should not have been surprised if there had been an inquest on some hon. Members. I am wondering what has been the result of that speech on the mind of the average Member of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the commissioners are to be men of light and leading. After reading his speech to-day the net result is that the commissioners are going to act as a sort of soft pillow between the areas and the Government. In the future, if the areas feel their burden so acutely they will send a request to the Government to receive a deputation and the Government will say "There is the commissioner." If they say we get nowhere with the commissioner, all that they can do is to make a public protest and there is an end of it The commissioners may be men of good will, I do not know, and I do not want to depreciate their value, but I have never heard of them in any public capacity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes it clear that the commissioners are to be under the control of the Treasury. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take particular note of that fact. I have read the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech very carefully this morning and he said that due regard will be had to the Treasury as far as these gentlemen are concerned. I know that a certain formal sanction has to be given, but, he said:
Accordingly, I am proposing to ask the House, if it shows it approval of our policy on the Second Reading of the Bill, to vote a sum of £2,000,000 to be paid out of the revenues of the current year into a Depressed Areas Fund, issues from which will he under the control of the Treasury."— [OFFICIA; REPORT, 14th November, 1934; col. 2000, Vol. 293.]
Who are the Treasury? The Treasury is the same body which has been responsible for the stoppage of public works during the past three years; it is the same body which has been responsible for the dislocation of the great Land Utilisation Act, 1931, and it is the body which flouts at every possible stage every possible proposal for great public works. The only difference seems to me is that local authorities in these areas are going to have this kind of obstruction between themselves and the Government, without the direct contact which they sometimes have now by means of deputation. If this was all the Government were
going to do, why did they not do it three years ago? A sum of £2,000,000 has been put at the disposal of these people. As a matter of fact I believe £900,000 was given by the late Labour Government towards the making of a big reservoir in the hills of County Durham. That was nearly half of the amount that the Chancellor is placing at the disposal of the commissioners, and the right hon. Gentleman says that there is a possibility of some return being made to the Treasury. At any rate he is making arrangements for that. So we have waited three years for this suggestion which the Government might well have made at the outset, for apparently it is to cost them nothing.
If you want to see the result of the work of the Treasury go to the areas that have just been investigated. One of the points in the report is that the people are not suffering physically. It is said that the commissioners have saved £300,000 on transitional payment and that the people are not suffering. I believe, Dr. Newman, the Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, makes the same statement. In the light of my own experience I am amazed at any such statement being made. I could give this House instance after instance clearly showing that there is wholesale physical deterioration taking place. There was a time, even in the roughest days of mining, when many miners used to dress crudely, but even in those days there was pride of dress; the miners' dress was good. Even if the miner had only a tie round his neck it was smart. In my time I have never seen such deterioration of dress amongst a certain section of the community as I have seen in the last year or two. When people let their dress go it means that they have been tightening their belts and denying themselves.
When this House is not sitting I should like to give the Ministry's medical officer of health an invitation to stay at my home for a week. I am sure that in spite of his previous report he will admit from sight that there are obvious signs of physical deterioration and very great self-denial. All this report is going to do, with very little done, is to continue the kind of business that has been going on for the last three years without any hope. I believe that that was the feeling of the country when the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's speech was read. I certainly think it was the feeling of the House yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman talked about doing something with land. No special powers are needed to deal with land. The Government have broken down the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act of 1931, which was designed to use land on a big scale and to help men financially. It would not have required any commissioners to do that.
Then there is the talk about transfer. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary knows that I have never been an enemy of transfer but I think that that kind of thing can be carried too far. There is no hope of solving the problem by transfer. I should like to have time to deal particularly with the transfer of juveniles. I have not been opposed to it. As a matter of fact I have almost adopted quite a colony of boys, although sometimes I thought they had adopted me. When I was at the Ministry I found myself sometimes embarrassed to know whether I was giving orders to them or was being bossed by them. But there is one thing of which I would remind the House in reference to juvenile transfers. These boys go away from their homes at the age of 14. They are not going to school and they are, practically speaking, lost to their parents. They get home for a holiday once a year. Imagine that in the case of a boy of 14. To a working-class family which has had to struggle to bring up that boy, it is a lamentable position. I would like the Under-Secretary to make a statement as to the kind of trades to which these boys are being put and the work which they are called upon to do. As I say, I do not think there is any hope whatever of making a real contribution towards the solution of the problem in that way.
This problem is too big for the kind of pettifogging suggestions that have been made by the Government. If the Government do not deal with it now and if they remain in office for the normal period I venture to say that they will be compelled to deal with far deeper and bigger issues by the very nature of this problem. There is the question of the raising of the school age. It is not good enough that great masses of these children should be located in particular
areas without any prospect of finding work there and with only the prospect of leaving their homes altogether. The school age question will have to be dealt with and so will the question of the utilisation of land and other and bigger questions. The Government have not faced these reports. They have retreated before the logic of the reports. That logic was that the Government should deal with deep and wide questions of policy in order to get at the root of what is responsible for the existence of the depressed areas. In the light of the facts, I say that the only result of the Chancellor's statement has been to show that he has had more regard for the City and gilt-edged stocks and for all the people who are interested in that kind of thing, than he has had for the men and women in those areas who have shown such bravery and patience, who have served the nation in time of peace as well as in time of war with courage, dignity and nobility and who in the light of these proposals are now apparently to be left to rot in these remote places. All I can say is that very soon there will be a calling to account in the country for the negligence which has been responsible for the increasing deterioration described in these reports. I do not think that it will be possible to have a vote to-night upon this matter, but we give the Government this guarantee—that we are going to resist at every stage, proposals of this kind as not being worth the paper on which they are written.

10.35 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I find myself in some slight difficulty, because my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour covered the ground so fully yesterday that I have very little indeed left to do to-night. I would like to pick up one or two points that have been raised in the Debate, and then go on to deal, with one or two of the broader aspects of the question. May I start by saying that I think the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) misunderstood slightly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in mind when he was referring to the condition of things in the depressed areas. I happen to know that he by no means intended what the hon. Gentleman suggested, because when the Leader of the
Opposition, I think it was, was speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually called my attention to the passage in the Durham and Tyneside Report which he had in mind, and which he paraphrased. This is what the Chancellor had in mind, and it occurs on page 75. The Civil Lord stated:
This figure of 148,496 represents 10 per cent. of the total population, and this large proportion must have included the most able and active members of the community who could find no local employment.
That is all the Chancellor had in mind when he made the statement to which the hon. Member took exception. I am sure of that, because he called my attention to it. He did not want to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition at the time, so lie asked me to make it clear when I spoke. Various hon. Members yesterday took exception to the proposals that were made by the Chancellor, and I think probably many people were under the impression that the appointment of two commissioners and the allocation of £2,000,000 sterling was the only think that the Government proposed to do, not merely for the depressed areas, but for the unemployed in the rest of the country. That is not the case. The appointment of the commissioners and the allocation of that preliminary sum of £2,000,000 is additional to all the other efforts that the Government have made, are making, and propose to continue to make by virtue of their present powers.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. Davies) and some others suggested that the existing policy of transference was not the right policy to pursue. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that we intended to intensify this policy, and he gave some very striking facts showing that there were still openings for persons from the depressed areas in other and more prosperous parts of the country. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil went on to suggest that this was not a right policy, because it was wrong to take people from towns where they had grown up and where they had established roots in the soil, and move them to other places, and that the proper policy was to bring industries to those towns. He painted a picture of Merthyr Tydfil, as he said, one of the oldest industrialised towns in Wales, grown up, with a tradition of its own, speaking an alien language, and anyone
listening to him would have got the impression that the whole of the present population of Merthyr Tydfil were descended from the original Welsh stock and that it was wrong to move them.
But what are the facts? It so happens that a special inquiry was made into the population of Merthyr Tydfil only four years ago, and it was found that in 1851, when Merthyr was the largest industrialised town in South Wales, out of 35,000 adult inhabitants, only 9,000 had been born in Merthyr and over 21,000 had come in from outside Glamorgan itself. In the course of the decade from 1871 to 1881–20 years later—no less than 18,000 of the then population of Merthyr was lost by migration. As lately as 1901 to 1910 tens of thousands of English persons migrated to the county of Glamorgan. To such an extent was that the case that in the Census of 1910, of 1,100,000 inhabitants of Glamorgan, nearly 400,000 had been, born outside the county, considerably more than half of them in England.

Mr. STEPHEN DAVIES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knows the difference between Merthyr Tydfil and the county of Glamorgan? Evidently there is some confusion.

Mr. HUDSON: I am quoting the figures to show the whole of the South Wales area. I have the figures for Merthyr Tydfil here, and I shall be glad to show them to the hon. Member. I am trying to bring out that both in South Wales and Merthyr Tydfil the population has not since the earliest days of history been a native, indigenous one. There have been wide movements of migration into those areas, and there is no reason why there should not be a similar migration out.

Mr. COVE: It was a free movement in to work.

Mr. HUDSON: And now it is to be a free movement out to work. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said he was not opposed to juvenile transference, but many of his friends objected that there was in fact no appreciable demand for juvenile labour at the present time. Last September there were no fewer than 4,000 vacancies in London alone which could not be filled. I know of one Exchange in the South of England to-day
where they have 300 vacancies which they cannot fill. I will show the extent of juvenile employment in the last 12 months. Hon. Members are aware of the large bulge in the school-leaving population. If employment among juveniles had remained the same during the whole of 1933–34 as it was for September, 1933, it is calculated that there would have been available for work and unemployed 330,000 juveniles now. Actually there are only 93,000, and that represents the improvement in 12 months. It is idle in face of figures like that to suggest that there is no opening for the transfer of juveniles. My right hon. Friend suggested last night some of the difficulties, and we propose to get over them, we hope, to some extent by the provision of hostels in large towns where there are definite openings to try to meet some of the difficulties which have faced this movement in the past.
There is one other point I might mention in passing, and that is the question of the employment of women. The Civil Lord suggested in his report that there was an excess number of women to-day in employment, and that if arrangements could be made to substitute males it would be an advantage. No doubt many hon. Members have received, as I did, a violent complaint from women's societies at the bare suggestion. I am happy to be able to relieve their minds, because we have no intention of doing anything that will upset the present arrangement, more especially as of recent months the number of men in employment has been catching up, and the disproportion which was noticeable some years ago is disappearing. In the distributive trades, which are usually quoted as the classic case, the proportion of insured males in employment to insured females is exactly the same this year as it was in 1923. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), suggested that the schemes outlined by my right hon. Friend were, in effect, nothing more than asking working people to bear the burden of work sharing. That is not quite true. The schemes that the party opposite wished us to adopt at Geneva would have meant asking working people to bear the whole burden of work sharing; but we think there is something to be done along the lines we have indicated.
I have taken the trouble—it may be of some interest to hon. Members—to try to see what is the size of the problem with which we have to deal to-day. I would remind hon. Members, in passing, that at the end of September, but it was probably true also of the beginning of October, there were in employment in this country, actually at work, a number of persons, which was within 80,000 of the peak number of persons who have ever been at work in this country since the War. Nevertheless, the figure of registered unemployed is over 2,000,000. Let us pause for a moment to see how that figure is made up. It is made up, of course, in the first place, of a large number of persons temporarily stopped but still connected with their own firms, and a number of persons normally in casual employment. It is made up, further, of some hundreds of thousands of persons who, through no fault of their own very often, are below the normal level of employability, very often they are accident cases and have been receiving workmen's compensation—and are very unlikely, except in times of really booming trade, to get a job. There are also a considerable number of boys at the bottom end of the scale, a certain number of the older persons in the depressed areas and a certain number of married women nominally attached to industry but not really in search of permanent employment. If we omit all these groups we come, finally, to a figure of somewhere between 1,000,000 and 1,250,000 persons actively in search of work, in the prime of life, who may be called the first-line reserve of the industrial army.
Those are the people who are our main problem, and for whom we have to try to find some solution of it, but as expressed in those figures I think the problem is less forbidding and less hopeless. The question of whether it is possible by some means of work sharing or shortening of hours to get increased chances of employment for them is a very real one. We have several times made efforts at the Ministry to get the co-operation of the Confederation of Employers Federations and the Trade Union Congress to examine this question, but up to now the whole problem has been obscured by the fact that the International Labour Organisation at Geneva Were considering a convention for the
limitation of the hours of work to 40 in the week, covering all industries. We as a Government have said more than once we do not believe such a thing is possible, and we have seen at the recent proceedings at Geneva that what the foreign worker, at all events, wants is mere work sharing, dividing out the existing work among more people, without any consideration of what the result on wages is going to be. What we think ought to be done in this country is to see, industry by industry, whether it is possible to shorten hours without reducing wages, and, if it is not possible to do it without reducing wages, to see what sacrifices the employers or the men respectively are prepared to make. Having done that we still have to see whether that reduction of hours will or will not have any appreciable effect on getting more employment for the men. My right hon. Friend has issued invitations to both the bodies I have mentioned to come to see him on this matter, and we have every hope that they will accept, and that the investigations will be carried out in a realistic spirit. We believe that is the most hopeful way of approaching the problem.
I started this analysis by pointing out that there were a certain number of people whom I excluded from the numbers with whom we have to deal. In particular, there are persons who are no longer able-bodied and there are the people over a certain age who are unlikely to obtain further employment. My right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out last night that he could not leave these people out of consideration. It is very largely because we realise that that we have set up these commissioners, who are to be given very full powers and a large sum of money with which to try experiments.
There are in this country a large number of people who have valuable ideas, but it is very difficult to put them into practice if you go through the elaborate procedure of Government Departments to make sure that every single thing you do will stand the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee of this House and questions across the Floor. We believe that it is possible to cut that procedure short and to go behind a great deal of that red tape. It is precisely to enable experiments on a very large scale of every sort and kind to be made in the depressed
areas with a view to solving these very problems that we have set up these commissioners. The commissioners are not going to stop in any way any existing activity of the central government or the local government in those areas. [An HON. MEMBER.: "There are none."] Certainly there are. Transference is going on, training is going on, and the construction of roads and bridges is going on. There is all the time a whole host of Government activities taking place which are having a material effect, taking the country as a whole, on the trade situation.
I fully anticipated that some hon. Members from Scotland would have taken part in the Debate to-day. I know that the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) had intended to intervene and to point out that in his opinion—he told me this in the Lobby—coal was one of the key positions in these distressed areas. We can agree with that. But what is the position of coal in Scotland, as a result, very largely, of the Agreements with foreign countries which were so derided by some hon. Members yesterday? As a result of these Agreements, very largely, the export of coal from Scotland this year has been materially greater than it was last year. Some Members have said that it is no good having Agreements of this kind, and they have pointed to the loss of the Irish market. It is perfectly true that Lanarkshire has lost a certain amount of its export market for coal to Ireland, but the losses so suffered in the Irish market have now been more than made up by increased exports to Scandinavia, Finland and the Argentine which have followed upon those Agreements that we have made. The same thing is true of many other parts of the country. It is quite true that we are dependent, as hon. Members opposite have said, on the export trade. I would remind them that the Board of Trade figures published yesterday showed that the export trade of this country was greater last month than in any month since January, 1931. That is one of the reasons, the recovery in trade, which justifies us in hoping that our transference policy, among others, is one that will be of material assistance to the depressed areas.
The only other point I would like to emphasise is that the setting up of com-
missioners is not going to interfere, we hope, with the various voluntary services that have been rendered in these distressed areas in the past. In particular, one or two wealthy counties under the leadership of the high sheriffs are, we understand, copying the example of Surrey and making an attempt to adopt or to help depressed areas or villages in other parts of the country. I hope that the setting up of the commissioners will not in any way interfere with those experiments.
My final point deals with the question of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, who asked why we had left out Lancashire, and with the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who said that many other towns in England were equally depressed. If they will read the reports, they will find what was included in the terms of reference of the Civil Lord. They will realise why, when he got there, he decided to confine his activities and his investigations to Durham and Tyneside.

Mr. MACMILLAN: In his report the Civil Lord says that the reason why he omitted Teesside was the time factor, and not the condition of the area.

Mr. HUDSON: Precisely; the time factor enters. We want the commissioners to get on with the job of trying experiments within a reasonable area as quickly as they can, but we are not, as I have tried to point out, blind to the condition of the rest of the country. We fully appreciate its needs. Our general policy is directed towards improving the situation there, and we certainly hope that, as a result of the experiments that will be carried on with this money in the depressed areas, we shall learn valuable lessons which we shall be able, as soon as the results of the experiments are available, to adapt, extend and apply to any town or area with heavy unemployment.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. DENVILLE: When the Tyneside report appeared I was very dubious about the results, and, being questioned by several people in my constituency, I said I would not give my opinion until I had heard them debated. I have listened to the Debate since the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose until, with the exception of one short interval, the present moment.
This is a most important report and will have a great bearing upon the prosperity of Tyneside and the depressed areas eventually, and, if sufficient trade is created in one portion of the country, surely it will beneficially affect other portions of the country. I welcome this report, but I am very sorry that there has been so much mud-slinging from one side of the House to the other in connection with it. One would have thought that it was something on which the entire House could join issue. I am satisfied with the provisions of the report. We can look upon it as an instalment, as an attempt to do something. Something attempted means that something might be done. It is far better to do something and make a mistake than to do nothing at all. Let us hope that the first instalment will be sufficient, and that there will be no necessity for a second report.
There seems to be a common complaint about the appointment of the two commissioners. They are appointed for the purpose of creating trade in the areas for which they are appointed. I hope their appointment will be justified. I go further; in every one of our large towns it is a practical policy for the councils to appoint a business man to take charge of their affairs. If we had such an arrangement in the city of Newcastle, I can see in my mind's eye one who understands the languages of foreign countries—an ambassador—going from the city of Newcastle to foreign countries and treating with them
with the object of bringing new factories and new industries to Tyneside. Only yesterday the question was asked: "What is the use of building, say, a boot factory in Newcastle-on-Tyne with the object—"

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the urban district council of Bingley, which was presented on the 18th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Portsmouth Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th day of October and published, be approved."—[Dr, Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Bowyer.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.